Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:05:46 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Clifton Royston <cliftonr@lava.net>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will 5.4 be an "Extended Life" release? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050417185631.05349ee0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20050412213328.GC1953@lava.net> References: <20050412213328.GC1953@lava.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:33 PM 4/12/2005, Clifton Royston wrote: > If 5.4 is expected to be an extended-life branch, I would consider >moving them up to 5.4 instead, to get a leap on current technology. >Has that decision been made yet? I have a similar dilemma. Currently, I am building all production servers with 4.11. But this means that I can't take advantage of AMD64 processors or some other things that are available in 5.x. And 5.x does some nice things, such as sandboxing BIND by default. Finally, it seems as if CPU manufacturers are rapidly moving toward multiple core processors, which need sophisticated SMP to work well. So, I'd really like to move to 5.4 when it ships. Trouble is, from the reports I'm seeing on the -STABLE list and my own experiments, I don't yet know if 5.4 is going to be as fast (especially at disk access) or stable as 4.11. (Many of the systems I am building will need very fast disk access, because they will be used as database servers and caches.) What's more, here we are at RC2, and there are still a number of open issues, as shown at http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/todo.html So, I am wondering if I should stick with 4.11, favoring fast single CPUs over multiprocessor systems, for production machines -- and then jump to 6.0 when it's released. Will security fixes be available long enough for me to do this if need be? --Brett Glass
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.1.2.2.20050417185631.05349ee0>