Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:15:14 -0400 Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: On Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:56 AM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: Seriously, why? Because I don't need to. Good enough? Do I now have your approval? Seriously? :)
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
Thanks, for the replys. I guess seriously is a too harsh work to use on a mailinglist. Sorry to those that took the question other than it was intended.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:49:16AM +0200, Tomas Bodzar wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Wesley M. open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, Need to cvs update and rebuild, so take time. And configuration file can change No compilation at all. With snapshots: binary upgrade sysmerge(8) for config files pkg_add -ui for packages Takes cca 15minutes on modern HW. During that time you can drink eg. coffe and occasionally hit Enter on your keyboard :-) So you will have at least 15 minutes of downtime on your production server, but if you run into problems e.g because of a non-trivial configuration file change, kernel bug that makes your network card unusable, and such that has happened in the past your are looking at a worst case downtime of several days waiting for a better snapshot. Depending on the demands on the server that is maybe not worth the risk. You could have an identical dummy server and do a test upgrade to be sure to avoid that. To avoid wasting time and resources sometimes running stable with patches is the better option. Cheers, Wesley. i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
We're using official releases in production because: It's tested. It's supported. It's coherent in means of packages and base system. No headaches during upgrades (at least none as of now, since 4.3) You can buy it (CDs, stickers!)
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Raimo Niskanen raimo+open...@erix.ericsson.se wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:49:16AM +0200, Tomas Bodzar wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Wesley M. open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, Need to cvs update and rebuild, so take time. And configuration file can change No compilation at all. With snapshots: binary upgrade sysmerge(8) for config files pkg_add -ui for packages Takes cca 15minutes on modern HW. During that time you can drink eg. coffe and occasionally hit Enter on your keyboard :-) So you will have at least 15 minutes of downtime on your production server, but if you run into problems e.g because of a non-trivial configuration file change, kernel bug that makes your network card unusable, and such that has happened in the past your are looking at a worst case downtime of several days waiting for a better snapshot. Depending on the demands on the server that is maybe not worth the risk. For that purpose there are HA setups, site scripts and other stuff to do update quickly without break in production. Or very short breaks in production which are regularly planned. You could have an identical dummy server and do a test upgrade to be sure to avoid that. To avoid wasting time and resources sometimes running stable with patches is the better option. He did not ask most important question. If he is interested in workstation/laptop/desktop/home use of current or big production. Still for stable with patches you need either separate machine which will create release or do that on production machine. Any of that needs some break in production when you apply that. Cheers, Wesley. i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:01:06 +0200 (CEST) HSL GmbH - wrote: New bugs are caught by snapshots and if you need the latest package then current is good once you know your way around. It's supported. I believe that's the main reason given in the faq for running stable for servers in that there are lots of people running exactly the same code and so they can troubleshoot or make others aware of any issues. Of course the best troubleshooters are running and care more about current, so it's a mixed bag. This may be a moot point in reality but the code is also more verifiable with cds and checksums.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On 09/08/11 06:18, Kevin Chadwick wrote: On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:01:06 +0200 (CEST) HSL GmbH - wrote: New bugs are caught by snapshots and if you need the latest package then current is good once you know your way around. It's supported. I believe that's the main reason given in the faq for running stable for servers in that there are lots of people running exactly the same code and so they can troubleshoot or make others aware of any issues. Of course the best troubleshooters are running and care more about current, so it's a mixed bag. Actually, No. -stable has nothing to do about debugging or troubleshooting. When it comes to support, nothing is better supported than -current. If you tell the developers that something that was working is now broke on -current, they'll be all over it like a *** on . If something is broke on -release or -stable, the first question will be, does it work on -current? If something isn't supported on -release or -stable, that will never change. New features, new hardware support ONLY happens on -current. If something is broke on -release, it will be first fixed on -current, then pushed back to -stable if it is significant enough. The biggest reason to run -stable or -release is a nice neat resting point in the endless upgrade race. If you install -current today and three weeks from now wish to add a new application package, you will most likely need to start by upgrading to the new -current first. If you install -release or -stable, you can install -release packages at any time you wish. If you have a bunch of machines, you may find it easier to keep them all at the same level, both for maintenance and for consistent upgrades. -release/-stable is a logical place to sit. A perfect release is the goal of OpenBSD. We don't always hit it, but that's the goal. (we also strive for today's -current to be better than yesterday's -current, and either to be better than the last -release. These aren't mutually exclusive goals). This may be a moot point in reality but the code is also more verifiable with cds and checksums. There's a valid point. Buy a CD, get the most official release, keep OpenBSD happening. Nick.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
I want an OS that works right out of the box. I am not a kernel hacker, nor am I wanting to do nightlys or even weekly system upgrades. I want to grab the release and have a compter that lets ne actually use the damn thing like I wasn't an idiot. I've been meaning to compile -current, but rarely get the time I need. I run OpenBSD because it's the only system I can find that just works. --Sean
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st writes: Seriously, why? I was current for the first time in years just before the 5.0 tag to try out Dale Rahn's powerpc interrupt changes since I was seeing errors in my log that seemed to fit the description in the email in tech asking for testers. Usually, I don't run current because I'm not sure I know what I should be looking for or trying out to provide helpful tests. The fact that I'm not at the level of understanding to know what a kernel developer might find useful to have checked suggests to me I'm not doing anything very useful by running current usually. So that would leave only my own purposes. I'm really fond of the six month rhythm, but there are some things I like about being close to the latest too, mostly to do with not having to backport the ports that I somehow get into my head I want a later version of. I'm not sure if this will be a good enough reason yet. Soon I should try an upgrade to a snapshot now that these interrupt changes are committed. Maybe I will stick somewhere near current or a snapshot from now on, at least on my main machine. I don't know. A question I wonder about though, if I'm not running current in a way that helps the project, am I just wasting system and network resources keeping up with it? - Mike
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:57:57 -0400 Mike Small wrote: A question I wonder about though, if I'm not running current in a way that helps the project, am I just wasting system and network resources keeping up with it? There are many mirrors, just choose a close one, I'm sure everyone would rather you report bugs on current especially testing ports even if you can't troubleshoot.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:31:27 -0400 Sean Howard wrote: I've been meaning to compile -current, but rarely get the time I need. You can just use the snapshots and snapshot packages the same as release just a different folder on the server. You don't even need to compile ports if you don't want to.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:16:13 -0400 Nick Holland wrote: Actually, No. -stable has nothing to do about debugging or troubleshooting. Points taken but I'm pretty sure there will be more servers running stable than current so hard to find bugs are more likely to be reported on by those masses allowing you to take preventative measures like installing current ;-) (I think the faq mentions this), stable also received the stop and test phase before more development that Theo talks about in his development cycle, of course that's part of what makes current so stable too. I don't have this problem but I wouldn't want to explain a beta message to my boss during boot up if a servers broke due to a bug in current. Though you should have redundancy in place anyway.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:56:55AM +0200, roberth wrote: Seriously, why? Funnily enough, a lot of people interpreted that as why aren't you running -current on all your machines ? which is obviously a different question, with a legitimate different answer. Most specifically, development happens in -current. If things stop working, and you only run releases, you will only notice when you update to the next release... So, having at least some system where you run -current, preferably in conditions similar to production machines, is a good idea to make sure you don't run into nasty surprises. It also helps us *a lot* as developers to find out about problems very soon after we introduce them...
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
So, having at least some system where you run -current, preferably in conditions similar to production machines, is a good idea to make sure you don't run into nasty surprises. It also helps us *a lot* as developers to find out about problems very soon after we introduce them... good point. i'm kindly new to openbsd, and using the -stable ; will setup a VM to test the updates done in -current, and with luck contribute back with code to the community of this great os. - Bcz sex is like hacking.. you get in, you get out, and you hope you didn't leave something behind that can be traced back to you.. - http://insanenetworks.blogspot.com - On 8 September 2011 18:01, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:56:55AM +0200, roberth wrote: Seriously, why? Funnily enough, a lot of people interpreted that as why aren't you running -current on all your machines ? which is obviously a different question, with a legitimate different answer. Most specifically, development happens in -current. If things stop working, and you only run releases, you will only notice when you update to the next release... So, having at least some system where you run -current, preferably in conditions similar to production machines, is a good idea to make sure you don't run into nasty surprises. It also helps us *a lot* as developers to find out about problems very soon after we introduce them...
Why aren't you running -current?
Seriously, why?
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: Seriously, why? i'm sorry :(
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:13:37 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
Simply because I always runned final release for server and gateway. Habit taken from linux even if some use arch or testing for debian. I'm new to openbsd and freebsd that i used for some month (maybe even a year) also seem to recommend final release. Should we really use current for gateway in production ? Le 7 sept. 2011 20:28, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st a icrit : On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:13:37 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:13:37 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious. I am running current, but a not-so-current-current.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious. - Following -stable with security patches matches my existing in house corporate policy for Linux. - It reduces variations between configurations of a given machine function (simple transfer of /etc to the new install, and go) - I know what I'm getting with each install, even if I don't get the latest PF feature. - I get 1 year of support from the community, before I have to migrate to a new -stable. - the systems are stable, known good, and work very very well. - The drivers are debugged, the man pages complete. I could go on. But, why?
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:56 AM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: Seriously, why? Because I don't need to. Good enough? Do I now have your approval?
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
I'm lazy.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
same here. it's kinda a time consuming to follow it ... On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Jussi Peltola pe...@pelzi.net wrote: I'm lazy.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
Hi, Need to cvs update and rebuild, so take time. And configuration file can change. Cheers, Wesley. i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious.
Re: Why aren't you running -current?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Wesley M. open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, Need to cvs update and rebuild, so take time. And configuration file can change No compilation at all. With snapshots: binary upgrade sysmerge(8) for config files pkg_add -ui for packages Takes cca 15minutes on modern HW. During that time you can drink eg. coffe and occasionally hit Enter on your keyboard :-) Cheers, Wesley. i'm sorry :( don't be sorry, just tell me why, i am just curious.
