why upgrade from 2.6.24.x to 220.127.116.11? same reason you would upgrade from 18.104.22.168 to
22.214.171.124. same reason enterprises pay for Linux. continued support.
unless someone is backporting security fixes to your current kernel revision, you should
consider doing it yourself or upgrading to 126.96.36.199. or maybe you've done a risk analysis and
determined that an upgrade to a more recent kernel (2.6.24.x -> 188.8.131.52) is "riskier" (higher
probability of disruption/failure) than a security breach with your current version.
i want to personally thank Oliver Pinter for his continued maintenance of 2.6.22 . the
stable version of linux-vserver is currently stuck at 2.6.22 (due to accommodating the new
container code in later kernels), so i'm forced to stick with 2.6.22 for right now, but
Oliver's "op" patchset has made that a supported possibility.
i only stumbled on his patchset because after the stable team dropped support for 2.6.22, i
searched for Willy Tarreau's patchset because he said he was going to rebase against it ,
and in desperation i Googled for "184.108.40.206" , though i had heard nothing about it while
regularly reading lwn and kerneltrap (but it now appears that i haven't been paying enough
attention to the "Kernel Trees" section of the weekly edition). i've been compiling his
releases since 220.127.116.11-op1, but honestly i haven't ran one yet because there hasn't been a
pressing enough need, and now that it includes security fixes, i'm waiting for a good time for
"planned downtime" to reboot into the latest.
so consider upgrading to 18.104.22.168 unless a great individual like Oliver Pinter is supporting
2.6.24 (or whatever your version) with backported fixes (security or otherwise).