Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 3.10.108 (EOL) | From | Sebastian Gottschall <> | Date | Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:09:34 +0100 |
| |
Am 15.11.2017 um 05:32 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:40:31PM +0100, Sebastian Gottschall wrote: >>> And anyway the end of life has been indicated on kernel.org for 18 months >>> and in every announce in 2017, so it cannot be a surprize anymore :-) At >>> least nobody seemed to complain for all this time! >> itsn no surprise for sure, but that also means i have to stay on the old >> kernel for these special devices and your argument about disable certain >> parts which simply turned bigger over time is no option >> >> since it would remove features which existed before. its not that i enable >> all features of the kernel. i use every kernel with the same options (some >> are adjusted since they are renamed or moved) > Then I have a few questions : > - how did you choose this kernel ? Or did you choose the hardware based > on the kernel size ?
i did not choose it. i port regular all kernels to the platforms i use including 4.4 and 4.9
but a few of these which are already ported to 4.4 and 4.9 will still run 3.10 for resource problems.
> - what would have you done if 3.10 had not been LTS ? using another LTS at that point :-) > - have you at least tried other kernels before claiming they are much > larger ? Following your principle, 3.2 should be smaller and 3.16 not > much larger. The former offers you about 6 extra months of maintenance, > the latter 3.5 years (https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html).
i also used 3.2 before. sure
dont get me wrong i work with all kernels, also with latests. i do also not complain that 3.10 is now EOL
i just wanted to throw some stones on the bloated kernel problem which is increasing
> >> but even then the kernel is turning into a ram and space eating monster if i >> look on devices with 16 mb ram and 4 mb flash. this is mainly for >> maintaining older hardware with latest updates. > So why didn't you ask if it was possible to pursue the maintenance a bit a > long time ago ? LTS maintenance is a collective effort and is done based on > usage. If enough people have good reasons for going further it can be enough > a justification to push the deadline. Now it's too late.
didnt know that. the LTS deadline was defined a long time ago. i follow up the mailing lists mainly for reviewing patches
and reporting feedback if required. if it see such a discussion i may get in touch with it too, but with hundrets of emails every days here its hard to follow anything
>> the more recent hardware is getting better here >> >> you dont seem to know how it is to work on wireless routers :-) > Yes I do, I've been distributing a full blown load balancer distro on a > 10 MB image (running on 3.10 as well). But I also know that sometimes > you make some nice space savings on new kernels (xz/zstd compression, > ability to remove certain useless stuff in these environments such as > FS ACLs or mandatory locks, etc). Sure, upgrading to a new kernel on > existing hardware is always a challenge. But it's also an interesting > one.
i do use xz and i do use a modified squashfs which is even smaller than the xz one in the kernel
smallest router i run with linux has 8 mb ram and 2 mb flash. so i do know how to get all very small. 10 mb image is no issue for me. the 4 mb flashes devices are my problem.
> > Also just to give you an idea, I've just compared the size of these > kernels configured with "make allnoconfig" (and I verified that all > of them were compressed using gzip) : > > 3.10.108 : 875 kB > 4.4.97 : 522 kB > 4.9.61 : 561 kB > 4.14 : 566 kB
its a little bit unrealistic since you have to count in network subsystem, filesystem and drivers.
standard kernel with xz compression is about 800 - 900 kb for me in 3.10 and 4.4 / 4.9 etc. is often more than 1 - 1.2 mb
sometimes just the 100 kb more count in and turn into a problem since i have to remove something from the image to get it fitting
if you are really interested i can give you a real comparisation using a comparable config on 3.10, 4.4 and 4.9 for a standard mips target
> > So the argument that migrating away from 3.10 is hard due to the size > doesn't stand much here :-) its turning harder. i already ported 4.4 and 4.9 as i said. so i tried already if they are running or not. they do run, but they are bigger and do not fit for some targets > > Willy >
-- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Regards
Sebastian Gottschall / CTO
NewMedia-NET GmbH - DD-WRT Firmensitz: Stubenwaldallee 21a, 64625 Bensheim Registergericht: Amtsgericht Darmstadt, HRB 25473 Geschäftsführer: Peter Steinhäuser, Christian Scheele http://www.dd-wrt.com email: s.gottschall@dd-wrt.com Tel.: +496251-582650 / Fax: +496251-5826565
| |