Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:25:55 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Cc: freebsd security <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>, security-officer@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon Message-ID: <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
> is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
>
> For instance, according to Julian Elischer's posts, it seems he is still
> working on it.
>
> Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
> more ?
Yes, I'm also voting for it. This support may be limited to
remote-exploitable vulnerabilities only, but I'm sure there are many old
slow routers for which RELENG_4 -> 6 transition still hurts the performance.
RELENG_4 is the last stable pre-SMPng branch, and (see my spring letters,
Subject: RELENG_4 -> 5 -> 6: significant performance regression)
_very_ significant UP performance loss (which has occured in RELENG_4 -> 5
transition) still isn't reclaimed. So I think it would be wise to extend
{ RELENG_4 / RELENG_4_11 / both } [may be limited] support.
Sincerely, Dmitry
--
Atlantis ISP, System Administrator
e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua
nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061011151458.L97038>