Release or stable?

P

piggy

I always installed -RELEASE branch. I was wondering it was the cutting edge FreeBSD software around (but the beta), now someone say it could be better to install -STABLE and apparently they fixed the memory leak bug in -STABLE and not in -RELEASE.

Which is the right branch to install to have a decently nantained branch and bug fixed?
 
For production systems I would advise a -RELEASE version. For your own personal systems I'd definitely recommend a -STABLE. I've been running -STABLE since 3.something and I've never had any real issues. Only every now and then (happened maybe 2 or 3 times the past decade) something breaks. But that's usually fixed by updating the source and rebuilding again.
 
For a critical system exposed to the internet, a RELEASE version is better. For an ordinary system that doesn't need the latest security fixes a STABLE version can work very well. I don't update a STABLE system unless there is a need for it(bug fixes, security fixes or new functionality that I need). A security bug in Apache doesn't have to be related to the kernel, so updating the Apache webserver alone is good enough.
 
olav said:
For a critical system exposed to the internet, a RELEASE version is better. For an ordinary system that doesn't need the latest security fixes a STABLE version can work very well.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. The -STABLE version will get the same security fixes, at the same time, as a -RELEASE.
 
for each security patch, there is as much work in STABLE as in RELEASE.
So no change there. Only if you use FreeBSD update then STABLE is a little bit more work.

Bug fixes could be installed but they do not have to be installed if you do not get bitten by them.

Using STABLE vs RELEASE is a dicision you have to make for yourself.


regards.
Johan
 
olav said:
Yes, but updating a STABLE system for each security and bugfix will require way too much downtime.
Click to expand...

The system doesn't need to go down during the build{world|kernel} phase. Updating takes about 10 minutes. Pretty much the same time is lost when updating a -RELEASE.

Besides, you don't have to update everyday. You can do it when the need arises. On my own systems I do it approximately once a month. Unless a gaping security hole is found, then I might do it sooner.
 
vermaden said:
@piggy

That is why I moved from RELEASE to STABLE, no BUG fixes on RELEASE.

That can help You to comprehend using up-to-date STABLE along with packages: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=149872
Click to expand...
Thankx, then reading what they write on the handbook make me think it could be better - for critical machines - to stay with RELEASE. They can't guarantee stability, they said STABLE is still a development branch.
FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users.
Click to expand...
They explicitly said "It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users" and this is not exactly what I want. I don't want to loose time at all with production machines and not even with my desktops. If I need to experiment, I will experiment with a dedicated machine, so better I stay with RELEASE.

Considering I've been on and off from the BSD world starting I think in 1995 or so, and I never ever installed STABLE branch once, I should give a look at it when I have some spare time to loose experimenting.

BTW, is it possible to upgrade RELEASE machine to a STABLE branch without loosing settings, configurations and stuff?
 
Isn't RELEASE just a snapshot of STABLE? Is it always guarantied that RELEASE is more stable than another snapshot of STABLE? Especially since only RELEASE only gets security updates, not bug fixes like STABLE.
 
bbzz said:
Isn't RELEASE just a snapshot of STABLE?
Click to expand...

It's a better tested version of a snapshot.

Is it always guarantied that RELEASE is more stable than another snapshot of STABLE?
Click to expand...

From Upgrading FreeBSD To -STABLE:
That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means

The name "-STABLE" is frequently misunderstood. It does not mean solid or steady. -STABLE means that while code can change, the ABI (Application Binary Interface) will remain stable and not change. Programs compiled to run on FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, or 8.1-RELEASE, or 8.2-RELEASE will continue to work on FreeBSD 8-STABLE. Effectively, -STABLE is the latest version of FreeBSD you can get without breaking installed software.
Click to expand...

-RELEASE is supposed to be better tested than just an ordinary snapshot of -STABLE.

In practice, I think I've had about four problems with -STABLE over the last decade. Most were due to incomplete updates on the mirror, and all caused build errors with no downtime. csup again to get the latest code, and the problem was fixed.
 
wblock@ said:
In practice, I think I've had about four problems with -STABLE over the last decade. Most were due to incomplete updates on the mirror, and all caused build errors with no downtime. csup again to get the latest code, and the problem was fixed.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. In the 10 years I've been running -STABLE I've had the same issues every now and then. Nothing to write home about though. An update usually solved it as I most likely had gotten a source update in the middle of some big commit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top