Very Computer

Thinking of upgrading to 5.0. Although, I've had trouble in the past with
versions ending in dot zero(0).
Doesn't seem there's much talk about 5.0 in this newsgroup. Just wanted to
get you alls opinion.

Thanks,
jt

Read the release notes and early adopter's guide, and decide for
yourself if you need/want to update.  No-one else can tell you whether
that is appropriate for your system.

Kris

The one problem I did have with 5.0-RELEASE's installer was that it
seemed to stamp my partitions with an incorrect geometry.  No such
problems with 4.X's installers.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

I did read the release notes and the early adopter's guide, this is the
reason why
I am asking and others experiences with 5.0.

Also, I didn't ask for will it be okay for my system, I'm assuming my
hardware.
I've been running 4.7 just fine.

Thanks for your input though.
jt

[snip]

Quote:> I did read the release notes and the early adopter's guide, this is the
> reason why
> I am asking and others experiences with 5.0.

> Also, I didn't ask for will it be okay for my system, I'm assuming my
> hardware.
> I've been running 4.7 just fine.

It depends what you want from the system.  For anything production, I'd
just track RELENG_4 at the moment.  My experience with 5.0 was brief
and troublesome - the system is still young and it was noticeably
flakey.

It's hard to say if it will be okay for your system when you don't
actually say what your system is.

Unless you have reason to change, and as you've been "running 4.7 just
fine", I'd say stick with 4.

YMMV.

Regards,
Steve

I'm running 5.0 and it's fairly reliable.  But I've had problems with
NFS.  If I try to copy a large amount of data (several hundred MB)
over NFS all at once, the copy will freeze and I'll get a bunch of
messages about the NFS server being unreachable (which isn't true,
it's working just fine).  That's the only thing I've found wrong with
it.  Well, there are a ton of NTFS-related error messages which
apparently are harmless (there is no error, the error-detecting code
is what's broken).

--

"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj

Quote:> I'm running 5.0 and it's fairly reliable.  But I've had problems with
> NFS.

I should also mention that I'm running 5.0-CURRENT so I can use the
NVIDIA X drivers.  I didn't have any problems at all with
5.0-RELEASE.  And I'm also using the new-fangled scheduler in
-CURRENT.  So even in 5.0 there are a number of different choices you
have when it comes to how much stability and reliability you want.

--

"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj

I'm running 5.0 release here

Overall impressions - 'feels' a bit slower than 4.5 that i was running
previously - might just be me, but it seems a bit less responsive at times.
Seems to handle higher loads a bit better on my system thou. Other than that
i am generally impressed with it.

Only bug/quirk I have found so far - occasionally after reboot MySQL will
consume 99% of the CPU for no apparent reason - worked fine in 4.5. A
kill -1 then a restart fixes it.

Just had the hard disk die (IBM 'deathstar' 60GXP) so when it get's RMA'ed I
will reinstall FBSD 5 on it and see if my MySQL problem is still there.

Cheers

Quote:> Thinking of upgrading to 5.0. Although, I've had trouble in the past with
> versions ending in dot zero(0).
> Doesn't seem there's much talk about 5.0 in this newsgroup. Just wanted to
> get you alls opinion.

> Thanks,
> jt

That's expected (and documented - read the Early Adopter's
Guide)..it's all part of the development process of eventually making
it much more scalable on SMP machines.

Kris