On Monday 27 August 2007, Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez wrote: > J.C. Roberts wrote: > > The reasoning for HP-UX is brand name recognition, vendor support, > > and of course job security -when something goes wrong, your boss > > can blame the brand name vendor in hopes of saving his own ass. > > And this is, i think, the main point for my boss and his "not > understanding" about the advantages of OpenBSD over HP-UX. But...i > have hope yet...he does not "close the door" to the OpenBSD > possibility. He wants probes...only i need to find a heavy argument. > For example...the developers that port OpenBSD to HPPA and HP300 > platforms....maybe they have benchmarks between this machines running > HP-UX and/or OpenBSD. It works better?? >
The hppa port is for 32bit. The hppa64 port will run more modern 64bit parisc systems. With the correct hardware both hppa and hppa64 are usable but you need to realize two things: (1) the ports are still under development and (2) benchmarks lie. The *ONLY* "benchmarks" that are applicable to your decisions are from the tests that *YOU* run in *YOUR* environment. Your boss should read up on LDAP and realize it was designed to scale by supporting clustering, fail-over and fault tolerance... -In other words it was built to run effectively on a bunch of lower cost commodity machines, as well as on huge expensive beasts. Unless you do a full case study with adequate testing in your environment, there is absolutely no valid justification for spending a ridiculous sum of money on huge massively multi-processor systems. > > LDPA has similarities to both database servers and file servers, so > > even though it's not an exact match, performance metrics for > > database/flle servers may be relevant to LDAP. As always, *YOUR* > > environment and requirements must be tested to get any truly > > meaningful performance metrics. If you have truly insane load and > > storage requirements, and an unlimited budget, spending a quarter > > of a million dollars on a very high end, 16+ CPU, Itanium box > > running HP-UX may be a better choice than OpenBSD. Then again, if > > that's really the case, I would prefer to go with big Sun hardware > > and Solaris under those circumstances. > > This is a good point too. Is it the performance of OpenBSD running on > Sun computers equal to Solaris?? Personally...i think Solaris...sucks > !! But there is no a technical opinion here...it is only i like the > OpenBSD way to do the things. For me, Solaris is a like a big > dinosaur. > In some of the BS comparisons you'll find, OpenBSD is often just slightly slower due to it's memory/stack security and other security measures which other operating systems lack. Since other operating systems do not have these advanced security features, you can't really call the comparisons fair. In general the only truly fair test data you'll find is in the various presentations made by Theo and other developers over the years which compares OpenBSD to itself, with and without specific security features enabled. It can give you a rough idea of the performance cost of the various security features, but you need to realize different archs, systems, and even processors can yield slightly different results for such tests. > > By comparison, the multiple processor support in OpenBSD is for > > i386 and amd64, and how well it will scale in *YOUR* situation can > > only be found through testing. Personally, I've never seen a 16+ > > CPU dmesg, but I'm not a project developer, and someone may very > > well be using OpenBSD on such hardware. > > Anyone that wants share his experience with this type of hardware? > > > There are people from this list who deal with fairly large > > LDAP/SASL installations on OpenBSD. Chris Paul (sentinare.com) and > > Jason Dixon (dixongroup.net) come to mind but I'm sure there are > > others. > > Do you have their emails?? Please, give my email to them if they > decide to share some information with me. (I look the emails too, > maybe are public...i don't want to bother anyone with unwanted > email). > I already gave you their web sites and Jason has replied in this thread suggesting you look at http://www.OpenBSD.org/support.html for people/companies who specialize in OpenBSD LDAP installations. > > The best business decision is the solution that gives you the > > greatest reliability and security for your requirements with the > > least amount of investment. OpenBSD has a very good chance of > > coming out on top in the majority of fairly tested comparisons. The > > corner case of insane loads and storage requirements is the one > > *possible* exception but even then, it may be sufficient. > > Do you have urls of this fairly tests? > You missed the main point. You will never find urls to test results that are truly applicable to your decision. Any "benchmarks" or "testing" you might find on the web should be considered irrelevant since they could easily be fake, or wrong, but more importantly, because THEY DO NOT REFLECT RESULTS FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENT. Your system environment, your hardware, your software, your network, your users and every other factor in your situation will affect the outcome of *YOUR* testing. You can either do the needed testing yourself, or higher a contractor to do the needed testing in your environment. -If your boss is willing to dump a quarter of a million dollars buying some massive HP boxes, then spending a small amount of money to get proper testing done (either your time or a contractors time) to support such a decision is absolutely mandatory. Anything less would be pure stupidity. If I was the CEO, and found out that your boss tossed a huge chunk of money at a problem without doing proper testing and analysis, I'd fire him immediately. kind regards, jcr
