RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64 - BSD

This is a discussion on RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64 - BSD ; Hello there Could you please tell me if migration to FreeBSD 7 would give my machine better hardware support? Today I'm using 6.2 and really got a headache from problems, hardware compatibility mostly.My machine is: Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe nForce 570 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64

  1. RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64

    Hello there

    Could you please tell me if migration to FreeBSD 7 would give my machine
    better hardware support? Today I'm using 6.2 and really got a headache from
    problems, hardware compatibility mostly.My machine is:

    Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe nForce 570 SLI
    (no driver for mcp55 integrated lan, I'm using nfe driver port from OpenBSD,
    and almost not working driver for Nvidia Media Shield RAID which I'm using
    in MIRROR mode)
    1024MB ECC DDR2 800Mhz
    2 x WD Caviar RE 250 GB 16MB cache SATA-II
    (no NCQ support in ATA driver)
    Athlon 64 X2 4000+ AM2
    (poor SMP)

    This machine is working as router/server and today it's a piece of unstable
    **** . I know that RELENG_7 is -CURRENT and could be unstable too, but I
    would appreciate your opinion if upgrade to 7 is worth in my case.
    --
    N



  2. Re: RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64

    N wrote:

    > Could you please tell me if migration to FreeBSD 7 would give my machine
    > better hardware support? Today I'm using 6.2 and really got a headache from
    > problems, hardware compatibility mostly.My machine is:


    > I know that RELENG_7 is -CURRENT and could be unstable too, but I
    > would appreciate your opinion if upgrade to 7 is worth in my case.


    I am going to yell, in the hope you will read this with the intensity it needs.

    Unless you have over 3 gigabytes of ram memory, and are running math intensive
    applications, YOU ARE NOT GAINING ANYTHING by running in 64 bit mode. GAINING
    NOTHING. Given the function you listed, really don't want to move to 64 bit.
    Even if it's just for the good feeling of using a 64 bit OS.

    Router functions can be handled by a PII-400. What are the server functions you
    think need 64 bit application space? The question is "do I have applications
    that are written to properly address more than 4 Gig of memory?".

    On the other hand, if this server is not mission critical, you might spend
    sometime at

    http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hardware/
    http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/

    and help out with filing proper PR reports, and work with the developers to
    solve your problems.

    --
    Walter

  3. Re: RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64

    Begin
    On 2007-02-08, N wrote:
    > Could you please tell me if migration to FreeBSD 7 would give my
    > machine better hardware support? Today I'm using 6.2 and really got a
    > headache from problems, hardware compatibility mostly. [...]


    I don't know that; you could read the -CURRENT archives to figure it
    out, as you'll have to regularly read that mailinglist anyway just
    to know what's happening with -CURRENT. I do know that, until 7 gets
    released, even in the best case you'll just be swapping headaches
    around.


    > This machine is working as router/server and today it's a piece of
    > unstable **** .


    Is there any reason why you absolutely have to run in 64bit mode, or
    even a 64bit machine at all, for that task? If not, find a better
    machine for the task, say some low-power 32bit box or other.

    This is actually a fundamental systems administration tenet. You do not
    use the greatest, latest, most unstable and buggy things for boring but
    vital services that nobody wants to think about but everybody expects
    are there. You use a suitable proven, boring, stable thing that you can
    reasonably assume will not break because someone farted in its vicinity.
    This goes equally for hardware and software.

    (This is also reason #1 why you don't want developers and industry
    magazine reading managers to manage any systems. Often not even their
    own desktops. Nevermind strategic IT decisions.)


    > I know that RELENG_7 is -CURRENT and could be unstable too, but I
    > would appreciate your opinion if upgrade to 7 is worth in my case.


    If you have to ask, no. Put another way: If you are a masochist, go
    ahead and have fun. You are, however, expected to deal with any and all
    little problems yourself, even if it does mean patching the kernel with
    code copypasted from mailinglists.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  4. Re: RELENG_6 VS RELENG_7 @ AMD64

    In article <530oorF1qd6ilU1@mid.individual.net>,
    jpd wrote:
    >Begin
    >On 2007-02-08, N wrote:
    >> Could you please tell me if migration to FreeBSD 7 would give my
    >> machine better hardware support? Today I'm using 6.2 and really got a
    >> headache from problems, hardware compatibility mostly. [...]


    >I don't know that; you could read the -CURRENT archives to figure it
    >out, as you'll have to regularly read that mailinglist anyway just
    >to know what's happening with -CURRENT. I do know that, until 7 gets
    >released, even in the best case you'll just be swapping headaches
    >around.


    >> This machine is working as router/server and today it's a piece of
    >> unstable **** .


    >Is there any reason why you absolutely have to run in 64bit mode, or
    >even a 64bit machine at all, for that task? If not, find a better
    >machine for the task, say some low-power 32bit box or other.


    I'm running a temporary router - when the Cisco 72xx took a dump -
    on a 500Mhz PIII, and another machine which is in bridge mode
    and doing bandwidth limiting on a 400MHz PII Xeon.

    For things such as routing you don't need horsepower.

    >This is actually a fundamental systems administration tenet. You do not
    >use the greatest, latest, most unstable and buggy things for boring but
    >vital services that nobody wants to think about but everybody expects
    >are there. You use a suitable proven, boring, stable thing that you can
    >reasonably assume will not break because someone farted in its vicinity.
    >This goes equally for hardware and software.


    I'll go along with JPDs suggestion. Put an older machine in
    as the router, and then worry about the server on the newer
    machine. You didn't give any indication of just how busy your
    server will be but I've had a server with hits [not the best
    marker] running up to close to 1,000,00o day in peak season
    on a PIII - at about 600 Mhz. That goes away next month after
    4 years of running 4.x variants with never a hiccup.

    We've decided to stick with Intel branded motherboards for the
    servers as they have proven themselves extremly reliable for
    servers. And our 1100's - which are being retired - had a
    wonderful BIOS that routed the BIOS boot messages to the serial
    port and then transfered to the OS so everything - including BIOS
    changes - could be handled remotely over a serial link off of
    a power-switch.

    FreeBSD doesn't need a lot of horsepower to perform remarkably
    well in a server environment.

    >(This is also reason #1 why you don't want developers and industry
    >magazine reading managers to manage any systems. Often not even their
    >own desktops. Nevermind strategic IT decisions.)


    I can echo that in spades. To paraphrase a very old phrase "then
    that can do, does. Those who can't read trade pulications"

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread