From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 21:45:05 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 8022C16A416; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:45:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2-3.pacific.net.au [61.8.2.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FFB43D78; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:45:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.2.163]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4257309347; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:44:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from epsplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC0A27416; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:44:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:44:58 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@epsplex.bde.org To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov In-Reply-To: <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> Message-ID: <20061012052709.P897@epsplex.bde.org> References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd security , security-officer@FreeBSD.org, Jeremie Le Hen , FreeBSD Stable 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: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:45:05 -0000 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: >> ... >> 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. I hesitate to do anything to kill RELENG_4, but recently spent a few days figuring out why the perfomance for building kernels over nfs dropped by much more than for building of kernels on local disks between RELENG_4 and -current. The most interesting loss (one not very specific to kernels) is that changes on 6 or 7 Dec 2004 resulted in open/close of an nfs file generating twice as much network traffic (2 instead of 1 Access RPCs per open) and thus being almost twice as slow for files that are otherwise locally cached. This combined with not very low network latency gives amazingly large losses of performance for things like "make depend" and cvs checkouts where 1 RPC per open already made things very slow. Bruce