Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:08:04 -0400, Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:43:29PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow. You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central control or plan at all. Oh, wait... Nick. ROTFLAMO! -If you think the Server/Desktop linux distros are bad, you should see some of the completely wacked linux incarnations that ship with custom reference boards from various chip manufacturers. Ya but the intention is for embedded use. The end-user typically has no interaction with such distributions. I'm not saying that's a good excuse to make the developers lives harder though. I *think* we agree but I'm still a bit unsure of your point? Sure, the ASIC vendors *expect* us to know the exact incantation to mumble over our voodoo chicken sacrifice in order to get their stuff working but I think this mess is not very different than the whole optimization nonsense seen so often here on the OpenBSD lists. Whether it's a new atmel ARM SoC chip or some custom built video or crypto ASIC, the people in the best position to provide sane defaults are the folks that built the darn thing. In the world of linux where there are no sane defaults and everyone is *expected* to turn a few zillion hidden knobs, a whole lot of time/money gets wasted, again and again and ... JCR -- A: Because idiots do not know how to configure their email programs. Q: How does top-posting happen? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On 7/22/2005 at 9:10 PM Nick Holland wrote: | There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to | someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff | at work. Wow. | You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central | control or plan at all. Oh, wait... = Software tends to take on the architecture of the organization that created it.
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
--- MikeM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/22/2005 at 9:10 PM Nick Holland wrote: | There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to | someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff | at work. Wow. | You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central | control or plan at all. Oh, wait... = Software tends to take on the architecture of the organization that created it. Fortunately, the group here stands fast and creates good stuff. You have to respect a group that will tell you straight out that you are making mistakes. I actually solved my little assembly problem thanks to the approach the developers take here. Brian Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
* Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-22 09:53]: On 7/21/05, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:35:27 -0500 Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be blunt, because when an enterprise just needs pure unfiltered inter-VLAN routing, Cisco has CEF products which can route between interfaces at bps and pps rates unapproachable using a general purpose Unix OS and COTS hardware. You know that CEF is just a poor exscuse for the pathetic performance of the CPU's Cisco put in, right? Fine, so you don't like Cisco. most of us just don't lik their hogwash. they sell crap. Substitute Raptor or Juniper or some other product that can do basic Inter-VLAN routing at 100,000 packets/second in even their low end products, That doesn't change the facts, just the brand name, the hue of the case, and maybe the reseller's profit margin. opposed to cisco juniper ships software that at least got some kind of QA, and doesn't sell pathetically slow CPUs for 10s and 100s of K$, and doesn't impose arbitary memory limits to force you to buy new boxens after a way too short period of time, and and and and... so, yes, it changes the facts dramatically. Regardless of whether you use the walks-on-water SysKonnect cards or crappy $470 Intel quad-EM cards, OpenBSD on i386 barely approaches half that rate, when doing nothing more than routing packets from one interface to another (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). 100Kpps should be reachable with the right hardware right now. there is room for optimization in OpenBSD to reach way higher forwarding rates. -- BS Web Services, http://www.bsws.de/ OpenBSD-based Webhosting, Mail Services, Managed Servers, ... Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:31:23 -0500 Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine, so you don't like Cisco. No sane person *likes* Cisco gear. Substitute Raptor or Juniper or some other product that can do basic Inter-VLAN routing at 100,000 packets/second in even their low end products, Dude, there are no low-end systems that reach anything even remotely close to 100kpps, especially not Cisco ones. That's why they're called *low-end*. That doesn't change the facts, just the brand name, the hue of the case, and maybe the reseller's profit margin. The fact is that most other vendors make better gear for less price (with the exception of Huawei...ugh). That changes the playing field quite drastically. Regardless of whether you use the walks-on-water SysKonnect cards or crappy $470 Intel quad-EM cards, OpenBSD on i386 barely approaches half that rate, when doing nothing more than routing packets from one interface to another (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). (see Henning's reply) but I wouldn't try to sell my boss on replacing the big 6500 core routers with a couple of OpenBSD machines stuffed full of PCI-X cards. That's exactly what some companies make and sell only it's FreeBSD and not OpenBSD. IOW, if the question is How do I transfer packets as quickly as possible from one broadcast domain to another, without any thought for security?, maybe the answer shouldn't be OpenBSD. ...then again maybe it is. --- Lars Hansson
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On 7/22/05, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regardless of whether you use the walks-on-water SysKonnect cards or crappy $470 Intel quad-EM cards, OpenBSD on i386 barely approaches half that rate, when doing nothing more than routing packets from one interface to another (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). 100Kpps should be reachable with the right hardware right now. there is room for optimization in OpenBSD to reach way higher forwarding rates. Part of the problem here is that people need to know the optimizations and unfortunately it seems like it takes either lots of research and/or a bit of luck to get the best combo. Instead it would be great if there was either a small addition to the faq or a separate faq that gave simple and explicit directions in how to turn an openbsd server into a lean mean routing machine. (Henning: Life with an OpenBSD router?) It would definitely help to lower the barrier of entry and then instead of rehashing this topic you could just point people to that doc (and perhaps throw some real world results in it for good measure). This would help people make the case for openbsd at work to their managers as well. Joe
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:31:23 -0500 Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine, so you don't like Cisco. Substitute Raptor or Juniper or some other product that can do basic Inter-VLAN routing at 100,000 packets/ second in even their low end products, That doesn't change the facts, just the brand name, the hue of the case, and maybe the reseller's profit margin. Regardless of whether you use the walks-on-water SysKonnect cards or crappy $470 Intel quad-EM cards, OpenBSD on i386 barely approaches half that rate, when doing nothing more than routing packets from one interface to another (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). PCs aren't as slow as you think they are. After taking the time to tune their network stack for performance, FreeBSD 5.3 can route 1Mpps on a high end PC. I have no idea how many pps openbsd can handle, but obviously you don't have to resort to cisco just to get 100,000 pps. Adam
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:48:11AM -0400, Joe . wrote: On 7/22/05, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 100Kpps should be reachable with the right hardware right now. there is room for optimization in OpenBSD to reach way higher forwarding rates. Part of the problem here is that people need to know the optimizations and unfortunately it seems like it takes either lots of research and/or a bit of luck to get the best combo. Instead it would be great if there was either a small addition to the faq or a separate faq that gave simple and explicit directions in how to turn an openbsd server into a lean mean routing machine. (Henning: Life with an OpenBSD router?) uh, no. I think you missed the point of Henning's comment. This is something for developers to work on, not magic knobs for you to twist. If there was something worthy of putting in the FAQ about this, it would be in the CODE. This isn't some other OS that shall remain nameless, where you are expecting to get a barely functional system and have to twist a lot of knobs to make it run properly, OpenBSD is supposed to have a good set of settings out of the box on the best-tested version of the kernel. Somehow, people seem to think there is some magic tweek we hide from people that will make their systems run better. If that were the case, it would be set ALREADY. Sheesh...why would we hide such a thing? why wouldn't it be set that way if it was a always do this kind of thing? The people who persue these kinds of tweeks usually are trying to optimize their cable modem or a T1 line that wasn't coming close to pushing the limits, anyway. Might explain all the stupid looking fins and funny exhaust systems I see bolted on cars...which is fine, just don't expect the auto maker to help you...nor exect it to get you through traffic any faster...inor get through the track any faster when you are pushing down on the rear wheels of a front wheel drive car *sigh*. But I digress... It would definitely help to lower the barrier of entry and then instead of rehashing this topic you could just point people to that doc (and perhaps throw some real world results in it for good measure). This would help people make the case for openbsd at work to their managers as well. No, lowering hte barrier involves making things Just Work without tweeking silly knobs. Nick.
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On 7/22/05, Spruell, Darren-Perot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not
openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid knob-tuning game and
quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead that the other
OSes should be responsible for slapping a disclaimer on their {box, web
page} saying something like This operating system, contrary to rational
thinking, is not optimized for the most reasonable performance under the
most common use cases. Instead of being functional out-of-the box, you are
expected to re-compile critical portions of the system in order to get them
to work to your specifications. If you don't find this behavior intuitive,
feel free to use a more rational, completely functional operating system
instead.
I agree with you completely and in a sane and rational world it would
happen just like that. Unfortunately I highly doubt we'll see any such
disclaimers though. I bet there are lots of people eager to defect and
it would definitely make things easier if such concepts were made
clear (maybe there could be a Bad OS Refugee page in the faq).
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Friday 22 July 2005 01:23 pm, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are used to dealing with complex or unoptimized piles of crap. Part of
encouraging people to switch should at the very least be communicating
that there are no hidden options or that straightaway things are going
to work as best as possible.
I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not
openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid knob-tuning game and
quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead that the other
OSes should be responsible for slapping a disclaimer on their {box, web
page} saying something like This operating system, contrary to rational
thinking, is not optimized for the most reasonable performance under the
most common use cases. Instead of being functional out-of-the box, you are
expected to re-compile critical portions of the system in order to get them
to work to your specifications. If you don't find this behavior intuitive,
feel free to use a more rational, completely functional operating system
instead.
DS
I'm going to have to agree with Henning, an operating system should be
configured by the people who develop it to have sane defaults for all but the
most unique cases and in my experience OpenBSD does an excellent job at doing
this. The people that have the strange corner cases where performance
tuning will make a large difference generally also have the staff, or the
money to pay for someone with the experience, to do the tuning. In my mind,
these are generally extreme cases where where throwing more processing power
at the problem is not an efficient solution, for example huge Trading markets
where transaction processing time counts (NYSE, NASDAQ).
Tim Donahue
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think, quite the opposite, that it's fine the way it is. It's not
openbsd's fault that people fall prey to the stupid
knob-tuning game and
quite dumbly follow that line of thought. I think instead
that the other
OSes should be responsible for slapping a disclaimer on
their {box, web
page} saying something like This operating system,
contrary to rational
thinking, is not optimized for the most reasonable
performance under the
most common use cases. Instead of being functional
out-of-the box, you are
expected to re-compile critical portions of the system in
order to get them
to work to your specifications. If you don't find this
behavior intuitive,
feel free to use a more rational, completely functional
operating system
instead.
I agree with you completely and in a sane and rational world it would
happen just like that. Unfortunately I highly doubt we'll see any such
disclaimers though. I bet there are lots of people eager to defect and
it would definitely make things easier if such concepts were made
clear (maybe there could be a Bad OS Refugee page in the faq).
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq9.html#Introduction
Read between the lines and that's what we have... ;)
DS
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: From: Joe . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I agree with you completely and in a sane and rational world it would happen just like that. Unfortunately I highly doubt we'll see any such disclaimers though. I bet there are lots of people eager to defect and it would definitely make things easier if such concepts were made clear (maybe there could be a Bad OS Refugee page in the faq). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq9.html#Introduction Read between the lines and that's what we have... ;) Heh. Glad to see someone caught some of the between the lines stuff in there. :). That was a hard article to rework, so hard to not just say, Get over yourself, your use of Linux makes you much an expert on Unix as using Applesoft BASIC when you were ten makes you an expert on programming There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow. You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central control or plan at all. Oh, wait... Nick.
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow. You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central control or plan at all. Oh, wait... Nick. ROTFLAMO! -If you think the Server/Desktop linux distros are bad, you should see some of the completely wacked linux incarnations that ship with custom reference boards from various chip manufacturers. JCR -- A: Because idiots do not know how to configure their email programs. Q: How does top-posting happen? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Re: Speed isn't everything, luckily for OpenBSD.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:43:29PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is just *no* way to explain just how wacked Linux looks to someone who is having to go from OpenBSD to Linux for some stuff at work. Wow. You'd swear it was written by an unorganized mob with no central control or plan at all. Oh, wait... Nick. ROTFLAMO! -If you think the Server/Desktop linux distros are bad, you should see some of the completely wacked linux incarnations that ship with custom reference boards from various chip manufacturers. Ya but the intention is for embedded use. The end-user typically has no interaction with such distributions. I'm not saying that's a good excuse to make the developers lives harder though.
