From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 14:14:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6163716A40F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:14:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vivek@khera.org) Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [65.205.34.180]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0712043EAA; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:10:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vivek@khera.org) Received: from [192.168.7.103] (host-103.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.103]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33246B80F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:10:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <452D7351.6050804@obluda.cz> References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> <452D7351.6050804@obluda.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-7--181073445; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Message-Id: <75D56444-EA9D-426B-A53C-2BDB77F00D87@khera.org> From: Vivek Khera Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:10:36 -0400 To: FreeBSD Stable X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:32:28 +0000 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd security Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:14:31 -0000 --Apple-Mail-7--181073445 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Dan Lukes wrote: > 5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count it as > competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release in 6.x tree. > 6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is sufficiently stable on > average use, but it still has problems in edge situations. The 6.2 > become first RELEASE in 6.x tree acceptable for serious production > use. 6.3 will be candidate for first trustable RELEASE if there > will not be significant I'll agree with your assessment of 5.x. The characterization of 6.0 and 6.1 is, IMO, inaccurate. We have one database server running 6.0 in production nonstop for nearly a year now. We have many systems running 6.1 with great performance and stability. There may be certain situations which 6.0 (indeed, any version) may fail in, but that's why you need to test *your* sytem with *your* software under *your* load to certify it as suitable for production. I'm already evaluating 6.2 for our production and plan to move to it shortly after release barring any failures we encounter. I'm trusting that the bge/em driver issues will be resolved prior to release, as those are just too important. --Apple-Mail-7--181073445--