Dont forget DragonFly... =) Well, if they just say. "This will be released on FreeBSD REL-X". Then everyone knows what to run. The choice of FreeBSD is quite simple, since it is the one with the largest user base.
It is within FreeBSD policy that a binary should be runable during every mayor version of the OS. And if they decide todo so I would recommend them to start at REL-7 that will be released "any day now". Then they dont have to worry too much for at least 3 years until REL-9 is due and REL-7 goes unsupported. Recent tests also prove that CURRENT (which will become REL-7) is faster and scales better than Linux. Especially on larger SMP systems. Linux did have the advantage during REL-5 and REL-6, but much work have been done to make it more competitive and have now passed on some real life tests. Like MySQL tests or network speed tests. And dont forget the most important part... FreeBSD doesnt need to recompile the kernel to change the HZ-value!!! ;p /Bjorn On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, [UTF-8] OndÅ^Yej HoÅ¡ek wrote: > FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin... and I don't speak of the historical > BSDs. > > Sure, no more worries. :-P > > I do agree that it sucks to support hundreds of systems with different > versions of all sorts of libraries, but I bet there are people in the > BSD camps who are up for more bleeding edge stuff, while others rather > stay conservative with yesterday's C library. What does this give you? > Absolutely the same situation as the bulk of Linux distributions: > different versions of everything. > > With Linux, at least the kernel is more or less the same. > > ~~ Ondra > > P.S. I doubt BSD binaries are worth it until Linux support is > more-than-decent, as Linux has a /slightly/ larger userbase. Fixing > Linux should therefore be a higher priority than getting out > one-quarter-broken binaries for yet another platform. > > On 01.08.07 16:34 Uhr, kama wrote: > > Wouldnt that be sweet? No more worries about different distributions... ;p > > > > /Bjorn > > > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, M. Kraaij wrote: > > > > > >> Are BSD binaries an option, Alfred? > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Alfred Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:15 PM > >> Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Alfred We Need Your Help > >> > >> > >> > >>> Our linux platforms are aimed at being stable development platforms, NOT > >>> at being production servers. You would be much better served by having > >>> the guys on this list that run server farm chip in. > >>> > >>> We run Slackware 9.0 with a 2.6.21.5 kernel for the dev platform and we > >>> have Debian etch on a test machine. Both machines are SMP. > >>> > >>> - Alfred > >>> > >>> tsuehpsyde wrote: > >>> > >>>> -- > >>>> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > >>>> Alfred, > >>>> > >>>> I don't mean to direct this straight to you, but you're the only real > >>>> contact within VALVe we have that actually gives us information or > >>>> takes our advice/suggestions on this mailing list. With that said, > >>>> can we get some > >>>> sort of straight forward answer as to the recommended platform or > >>>> configuration for SourceDS for Linux? I realize that Linux does take > >>>> a back > >>>> seat to Windows as far as SourceDS goes (look at the incident a year > >>>> or so > >>>> ago when VALVe released a linux update that would not even start in a > >>>> vanilla state), but some sort of input would at least help us get on > >>>> the > >>>> right track. > >>>> > >>>> These are the three core questions I would like to see answered by > >>>> Alfred or someone else directly from VALVe and not a third party: > >>>> > >>>> 1. What distribution of Linux does VALVe use for testing and > >>>> deployment? > >>>> > >>>> 2. What kernel version (and also patches if applicable) are used in > >>>> this > >>>> platform? Also, can we get the kernel configuration, or even the > >>>> kernel's .config file? > >>>> > >>>> 3. What other system packages and versions core to the OS (glibc, > >>>> etc.) are > >>>> used? > >>>> > >>>> Those three questions, I don't think, are asking a lot from VALVe, > >>>> considering the amount of time and money we put into hosting the > >>>> game. I > >>>> don't like the idea, but I'd down-grade packages as needed on my > >>>> servers to > >>>> keep things running smoothly. Also, I'm not sure *what* you guys are > >>>> doing, > >>>> but it seems that the updates are a back and forth game with my > >>>> ability to > >>>> renice my game server processes to -20 (if set, both game servers > >>>> spike to 99% CPU used). This is a core functionality to my servers, > >>>> and I (as well as > >>>> other Source administrators) would really appreciate having it fixed. > >>>> It > >>>> appears on my servers when two game server processes are set as -20. > >>>> However, with one set to -20 and the other left at 0, it's fine. > >>>> Again, this fixes/breaks with updates on and off and is sort of > >>>> frustrating since > >>>> setting the process priority is written into my scripts, and I have to > >>>> remove it every time it breaks (and game server performance suffers > >>>> from > >>>> it). > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your time, > >>>> > >>>> -tsuehpsyde > >>>> SourceKills.com > >>>> -- > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
