Any compelling reason to get ready to upgrade to 13?

decuser

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 126
Messages: 270

I have been reading the FreeBSD 13 release notes and trying to glom what new features are going to be in the release and I’m having a difficult go of it. Bhyve seems to be about the biggest recipient of changes, and my favorite calculator, bc, but I’m wondering if anyone knows of any compelling reason to prep to move to this release?
 

ShelLuser

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,091
Messages: 3,782

Well, one compelling reason would be that support for 12.2 (and 11.4) will eventually come to an end.
 
OP
decuser

decuser

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 126
Messages: 270

Well, sure. Not quite was I was looking for, but yes, that's compelling, at least down the road. Any other reasons of a more immediate nature?
 

Beastie7

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 580
Messages: 695

I would make a decision after the actual release and full release notes are shipped.
 

the3ajm

Member

Reaction score: 13
Messages: 74

For me, since I'm running older GPU hardware and currently experiencing gpu hangs, I've heard there's been some fixes for i915 in the next release so I want to try it out.
 
OP
decuser

decuser

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 126
Messages: 270

Beastie7, so are you suggesting that all of the new features aren't necessarily reflected at this point (Beta 2)? I was wondering, cuz it sounded an awful lot like a bunch of small fixes outside of the bhyve stuff.
 
OP
decuser

decuser

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 126
Messages: 270

Oh yeah, and wasn't OpenZFS supposed to be the default in 13?
 
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest


Oh yeah, and wasn't OpenZFS supposed to be the default in 13?
So it's better to see if it works for other people or not before we actually try. I think I'm lucky because my 11.4-p5 is still uses Forth based loader, so I don't have to suffer from the new Lua based loader. It's perhaps the mind set I got from my Windows days, upgrading is costly (it costs real money!), waiting until your system is actually unsupported or if M$ offers good plan to upgrade so you could save the cost. Remember they allowed upgrading for free from Windows 7 to Windows 10 for a while, this time I was trapped, I upgraded to Windows 10 and shortly later I'm on Linux :)
 

richardtoohey2

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 301
Messages: 610

There's talk of performance improvements but YMMV. I think it's early days yet. The new boot loader is pretty. ;)

For me one of the benefits of trying out the next version - on test machines! - is that if there are any issues I can raise them and improve the quality of the release and also help myself because then the release will work on my hardware.

Also on these forums you see people on EOL versions getting stuck because they discover the new version (that they didn't help test) has issues and now they are in trouble - they can't stay on the EOL version but they can't go to the newer version either.

Obviously not everyone can test, not everyone has got enough hardware, even if you do test on a spare machine that might have different hardware that your main machine or favourite laptop, and so on.

But the more you put in, the more you get out.

And you might also find something new in 13 that floats your boat, just from trying the BETA/RC.

I wouldn't try the BETA or RC versions on anything but spare machines, just in case you hit any major issues.
 

Yze

Member

Reaction score: 10
Messages: 22

biggest boomer to us: ZFS with encryption support - no more embedding zpool's in GELI containers.
biggest challenge so far to us: gnugrep is now replaced with bsdgrep (commit) by default.

While doing our first test with 13-STABLE we stumbled immediately on some of our scripts do not work anymore which did spawn 'grep'. In a nutshell most where easy to fix - but it's scary how much else might fail in the future. I would recommend to throughly test your stuff before and after upgrading.
 

scottro

Daemon

Reaction score: 875
Messages: 2,025

For me, so far, I've found that I need 13 for my T495, with Ryzen and an AMD dedicated GPU. X wouldn't work on 12.x. ZFS will be using version 2, which seems to have several advantages. However, upgrading, vs a clean install, will require some work. (There is a thread about it somewhere on the forums).

I'm running it on a laptop where I don't do that much. As for my main machine, I probably won't upgrade till I see what problems people have with it.
So, short answer seems to be the ZFS improvements and performance improvements. Depending upon your use case, this may or not be noticeable.
 
OP
decuser

decuser

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 126
Messages: 270

I usually export my zfs stuff and do a clean install for major versions. I don't mind doing:

freebsd-update fetch
pkg update; pkg upgrade

for minor versions, but I've been bitten in the past by upgrading majors and having them work fine for a year, but when I went to do a clean install, finding out that something was missing from the new version that the old version had... better to find out early what's missing.
 
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest


Make use of bectl(8) or beadm(1) before doing major version upgrades.
I always have this question but never asked on this forums. What if the upgrade break ZFS compatibility itself? e.g: new ZFS features and zpool upgraded. Then the boot environments (snapshots in fact) are useless, because reverting to the old BE, the old ZFS doesn't compatible with the upgraded pool, and the final consequence could be the pool mounted as read-only or it's just not able to boot at all! Please correct me if I'm wrong. I created and make use of BEs as other people but I don't really trust them that much if it's about dealing with upgrades!
 

rootbert

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 152
Messages: 411

I always have this question but never asked on this forums. What if the upgrade break ZFS compatibility itself? e.g: new ZFS features and zpool upgraded. Then the boot environments (snapshots in fact) are useless, because reverting to the old BE, the old ZFS doesn't compatible with the upgraded pool, and the final consequence could be the pool mounted as read-only or it's just not able to boot at all! Please correct me if I'm wrong. I created and make use of BEs as other people but I don't really trust them that much if it's about dealing with upgrades!
there are still zfs checkpoints (not snapshots!) if you worry
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 12,037
Messages: 38,480

I always have this question but never asked on this forums. What if the upgrade break ZFS compatibility itself? e.g: new ZFS features and zpool upgraded. Then the boot environments (snapshots in fact) are useless, because reverting to the old BE, the old ZFS doesn't compatible with the upgraded pool, and the final consequence could be the pool mounted as read-only or it's just not able to boot at all! Please correct me if I'm wrong. I created and make use of BEs as other people but I don't really trust them that much if it's about dealing with upgrades!
Don't upgrade your pool until you're absolutely sure things are working properly.
 

olli@

Daemon
Developer

Reaction score: 1,252
Messages: 1,140

I have been reading the FreeBSD 13 release notes and trying to glom what new features are going to be in the release and I’m having a difficult go of it. Bhyve seems to be about the biggest recipient of changes, and my favorite calculator, bc, but I’m wondering if anyone knows of any compelling reason to prep to move to this release?
Compelling reason? How about up to 2× performance boost?

There have been some performance-related improvements that are really noticeable, especially on multi-core (multi-thread) CPUs. From the top of my head: better optimizations in LLVM/clang, improved NUMA support, better thread / memory locality (thus CPU caches are more effective, and less overhead for context switches), improved P-state support, new lock-less kernel structures. I probably forgot some.

Together, these improvements give a 2× performance improvement in some benchmarks. For example, see this article at Phoronix. Yeah, I know, Phoronix often writes nonsense, but in this case they’re not too far off. ;)
 

Yze

Member

Reaction score: 10
Messages: 22

time will prove if there is a large performance boots. I am curious to see stability.
 

richardtoohey2

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 301
Messages: 610

The newer jemalloc seems to have stopped MySQL 5.7 rampaging through RAM and straight into swap (until the OOM killer strikes). But I'm doing more testing to make sure I'm looking at the right things. And this is just my one test case of importing data, not an all-round MySQL 5.7 on FreeBSD test.
 

usdmatt

Daemon

Reaction score: 601
Messages: 1,543

Honestly, OpenZFS has become a big reason for me *not* to upgrade (at least for a while)

I installed a 13 snapshot to try out encryption but had a few worrying issues so moved back to 12 and everything was fine. I did report these on the mailing list but had nothing back. I use ZFS for a lot of important systems and can’t risk any big regressions.

The 2 issues I had were

1) after sending snapshots of my live data to this system, I noticed the “used” space for my just-sent snapshots was growing even though the system was a backup and all data was untouched. Some were reporting several 100MB of usage in a snapshot with absolutely 0 changes to any data.

2) a scrub slowed to an absolute crawl at 19% - taking half an hour to go 0.01%. before speeding up again several hours later, then crawled again at about 60% until I eventually stopped it 20 hours after starting - never really getting past that second crawl. On a new pool on 12.2 with the same data (approx 300gb Iirc) the scrub completed in just under an hour.

Edit: This was my thread on the mailing list -
 

wolffnx

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 230
Messages: 676

Honestly, OpenZFS has become a big reason for me *not* to upgrade (at least for a while)

I installed a 13 snapshot to try out encryption but had a few worrying issues so moved back to 12 and everything was fine. I did report these on the mailing list but had nothing back. I use ZFS for a lot of important systems and can’t risk any big regressions.

The 2 issues I had were

1) after sending snapshots of my live data to this system, I noticed the “used” space for my just-sent snapshots was growing even though the system was a backup and all data was untouched. Some were reporting several 100MB of usage in a snapshot with absolutely 0 changes to any data.

2) a scrub slowed to an absolute crawl at 19% - taking half an hour to go 0.01%. before speeding up again several hours later, then crawled again at about 60% until I eventually stopped it 20 hours after starting - never really getting past that second crawl. On a new pool on 12.2 with the same data (approx 300gb Iirc) the scrub completed in just under an hour.
thanks to share your experience,I install from scrach 13.0-BETA2 in one of my machines
I will try to replicate the 2 problems
 
Top