Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Hello! On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:23:39PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Wijnand Wiersma wrote: On 4/5/06, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sick and tired of this OpenBSD doesn't perform well FUD. It is nothing but FUD or over-generalization. Well, I don't entirely agree. At some tasks OpenBSD feels sluggish, X performs much slower for example then on *sigh* Linux *sigh*. So, why blame OpenBSD for that then. Did they design it? If the difference is that the *same* X is more responsive on OS A than on OS B, then there must be a difference between A and B responsible for it rather than X. But then, I feel a general sluggishness not only with X if my box is doing much I/O. I.e. even starting little programs like trn feels slower while e.g. the backup is running, i.e. X11 isn't even involved, just some shell, screen, sshd, and trn. [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 07:03:00PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hello! On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:23:39PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Wijnand Wiersma wrote: On 4/5/06, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sick and tired of this OpenBSD doesn't perform well FUD. It is nothing but FUD or over-generalization. Well, I don't entirely agree. At some tasks OpenBSD feels sluggish, X performs much slower for example then on *sigh* Linux *sigh*. So, why blame OpenBSD for that then. Did they design it? If the difference is that the *same* X is more responsive on OS A than on OS B, then there must be a difference between A and B responsible for it rather than X. But then, I feel a general sluggishness not only with X if my box is doing much I/O. I.e. even starting little programs like trn feels slower while e.g. the backup is running, i.e. X11 isn't even involved, just some shell, screen, sshd, and trn. X being slower could be caused by lack of hardware acceleration, at least for some combinations of cards, X servers, and so on. Most OSes ship with blobby acceleration, OpenBSD doesn't but loses out on some performance[1]. I do agree that, in particular, the disk access scheduler does not seem optimized for desktop use - I see the same while doing a backup, or even just untarring/cvs up-ing. Joachim [1] And gains in stability, openness, correctness and security, but that's not the point.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
* Miles Keaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-06 03:57]: Wondering... since I brought up MySQL, and a few people (thanks Henning!) said MySQL in particular has problems, I didn't mention that we're about to ditch MySQL anyway, and complete our conversion to PostgreSQL, so I wonder... good move :) Does PostgreSQL have the same problems as MySQL on OpenBSD? not at all. potsgres doesn't use threads. -- 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: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Hi! On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 04:29:40PM -0600, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote: Hannah Schroeter wrote: IIRC there're consultants offering commercial services around OpenBSD, too. So you could've hired one to fix the Broadcom problem of yours, just like you paid for Nortel's on-site troubleshooting. Not to inflame the issue, but this isn't as solid of an argument as it appears. Knowing in advance whether you'll be able to find a consultant who knows enough about your problem to fix it is very tenuous. Of course you can look out in advance, before you start depending on it, i.e. first look for people who can support things, perhaps make some kind of support contract or pre-contract with them, *then* install your mission critical systems. [...] If one could guarantee that the person who wrote the problematic code were always available as a consultant, the analogy might be closer, but frequently that's not the case. Even a commercialized open source OS like Red Hat Linux is going to face this issue. But now, commercial vendors also integrate 3rd party code, and then they might also not have people who wrote the code *themselves* in house. E.g. commercial OSes shipping with OpenSSH. Then again, OpenBSD is free. No one expects it to be exactly like commercial software, and it has a lot of benefits that commercial software won't. Choose the tool that best fits the requirements. Right. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Fine, but wasn't your requirements here the cheapest solutions, not the platform on witch it run? I don't know that, only you do. But may be there was and is a very nice solutions working on OpenBSD, but that was just more expensive and that you couldn't pick. Again I don't know, but you justify it by the cheapest, not what's good for the job. Again, I use what's supported, not what's the cheapest and then asking to have it supported then. If you're working for an employer where cost (both initial and TCO) are not part of the solution criteria, are they hiring? I hope you are not saying that OpenBSD should support your commercial elected choice right? That's liek saying OpenSSH should support IBM in their own customers ssh contract where they pocket the money, but OpenSSH should fix the problem IBM customers have with IBM product on IBM support contract! I am sure you are not saying that for sure! Even many open source product won't necessarily take bug reports if it's running in a BSD instead of on a supported kernel. Nor should they. If anyone elect to do something not supported because they want to, they sure have the choice to do that. That's the opne source choice, but in no case shoudl they ever have the right to come back and say, hey I use this, but you need to support me on that. I think we're approaching things from very different positions. To me, an operating system doesn't provide solutions. It's the platform on which solutions are implemented. Judging from your examples, your job is focused far more on switching and routing than mine is. OpenBSD does ship with a fairly complete toolkit for those tasks. I'm a systems administrator, so my outlook is toward data access/ storage/security and end-user experience. An OS shouldn't ship with those sorts of tools -- if I wanted a that sort of mess, I'd use RedHat. I'm not looking of OS or hardware-level support. When I implement a solution, it either needs to be simple enough to debug myself if I find problems or I need to have a mechanism to report bugs to the developers with a reasonable expectation that they will be fixed in the source. The latter is especially critical when the only solution I can find is a closed-source solution. I'd rather not use closed- source ever, but sometimes that's just how the cards come up. The right tools fo the job. Some like features, then go for it. That's why there is choices. Isn't great! Each one can take what they want in the end. What you call features, I call end-user requirements. But when arguing, stay true to the idea at hand and what's the choice and requirements for the elected product. Changing the playing field along the way to justify what to use or not to use is wrong. I think it is anyway,. but YMMV. Not all tasks have the same criteria. It's not changing the playing field, it's evaluating each task/job as it comes and setting the solution criteria appropriately. My bottom line can't be quantitatively measured by network efficiency. I have 5 subnets full of end-users sitting at Windows and Mac workstations trying to do whatever it is they do. My bottom line is how well I can build/manage/ design services that meet their needs. Again, I think we have very different jobs. -- Don
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Donald J. Ankney wrote: If you're working for an employer where cost (both initial and TCO) are not part of the solution criteria, are they hiring? Well, in all fairness to this statement, I have an unfair advantage. I own both business I operate, so I make the choice and live with the consequences of the choices I make. So, you bet that I pick what I fell is the best for the job, I try anyway and if that cost more money, so be it! I value my time in sleeping and peace of mind! But as far as the subject of hiring is concern, when someone good cross my path, I always react to it. Rare that it happen, but when it does I do. However, I am for sure looking to find a person(s) that will enjoy building in an OpenBSD way ONLY under the BSD license a complete hosted PBX solutions to replace that platform I am using now. I thought I pick the best one, but it's all the same in the end. You get stuck in lock in and screw over by the companies anyway. This person can be either full time, part time, work from home, as an ahoc of their own job, I really don't care about that. I am very logical and practical men. I care about the end solutions and the quality of it. How we get there is totally irrelevant to me, but I will get there! If interested, or anyone interested, this can be taken off list. I never maid it a secret here, but never really posted a job requirements if you like because I think it wasn't appropriate may be! But as you asked, well here is the answer to that question. So, Yes, I am looking for long term on that, start from the ground and stay with it and expand it after the fact and enjoy the freedom it may provide in the future to continue contributions to the OpenBSD project in anyway possible. I think we're approaching things from very different positions. To me, an operating system doesn't provide solutions. It's the platform on which solutions are implemented. Judging from your examples, your job is focused far more on switching and routing than mine is. OpenBSD does ship with a fairly complete toolkit for those tasks. One business I have is an ISP, so yes that a fair statement, the other is a web design firm with heavy traffic and database as well. But it may not be as different as you think however. I agree with you as far as the OS is concern. To me, it needs to be rock solid to run what you may want to run on it. Example, you saw me talking about Cisco for example. Well their call manager solutions a few years ago when I was looking at various solutions was running on NT4 and required you to run NT4 for their solutions. I went to a demo, but as soon as I saw the engineer turning on his monitor and logging in his call manager management system, I asked a simple question and only one to him. He was from Cisco. The question was simple. Is your system required Microsoft NT 4 to run your call manager PBX systems and the answer was yes. I walk out of the room and that was it for me. Later on I found that that it doesn't support virtual hosting PBX anyway, so it wouldn't have worked never the less, but the bottom line here is that I need something stable and Microsoft wasn't it period! So, the platform OS is the start, pick a good one, then you are half way there. Then there is the more challenging one that you may not be able to run what you may want on it. Not that it doesn't run I grant you that. But does it run well however, that's important. Just like the MySQL ProgreSQL discussions going on here. MySQL use treads, ProgreSQL doesn't, so on OpenBSD, until the rtreads is complete, it's more likely that ProgreSQL run better then MySQL, does it mean you can't use MySQL, no, but it depends on your requirements. I use MySQL and I am very happy. I had to do tuning to make it work properly however, but it sure fit my needs. However, I am considering seriously giving a try to ProgreSQL. Is it because I have problem with MySQL, no, just that it progress so well in the last 7 years, that may be it's time I give it an other run in all fairness. It's not what it used to be when I was running MySQL 3.22.x many years ago. I don't think we are that far apart. The main difference might be that you are force to run some applications because the users wants that, oppose to me where I look at the choice of applications that does about the same things and I pick witch one I think after testing works best for the task at hand and then tell the users, that's what they will have to use and get use to it! I value their input, but in the end, we will not run three different version of similar things, but one. Can we switch in the future, sure if all the justifications are there and it improve the security and stability. I have to give you a win however in the case where yours will switch to something that look better may be. They want it because it's cool. I am sure you have to deal with that. I don't! That's not a valid requirements for
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On 4/5/06, David T Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just out of curiosity why did your company decide to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql? Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql everywhere these days... http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html Or at least you hear about it more it seems... That's just marketing :)
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On 4/5/06, David T Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just out of curiosity why did your company decide to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql? Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql everywhere these days... Or at least you hear about it more it seems... I do know of one source (_large_ net spidering outfit) who I used to contract for that had chosen postgres over mysql because of large table stability. Basically mysql side by side with their straight forward table structures and queries covering millions of records were quicker and the engine was more predictable. But why take my word? Go install both and write a shell script and fill them with a couple million lines of info and pound away :) On 4/4/06, Miles Keaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a serious question, for heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations. Which leads me to my real question for you heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations: When would you NOT use OpenBSD? There's only one (IMO) place to not use OpenBSD...when its on the desktop and you need a driver to be productive. I'm using debian and -current on my laptop for this reason because I have to be able to use wireless when in a datacenter. Mission critical applications/enterprise/production.. everything pales to OpenBSD. My reasons: 1) security 2) documentation 3) simplicity 4) ports 5) source documentation 6) ease of source use and navigation 7) faqs mailing list archives
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
The answer is very simple: When I have to run Windows programs. Support skills is very relevant to the question. Various early comments have used the phrase It all depends on the right tool for the job. That phrase is not the whole story. Every time you add a new OS to the mix, the support problem becomes more complex. We used to run 1 Solaris, 2 Linux, 1 NetBSD and 2 OpenBSD systems plus a whole lot of MS Windows. Over about 2 years I converted all the Unix like systems to OpenBSD. I did not convert because I thought OpenBSD was the best for everything. As long every thing worked after the conversion I was happy. I just wanted to simplify the upkeep of the systems.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
When would you NOT use OpenBSD? When would you choose one of the other *nix over OpenBSD? I'm NOT using OpenBSD on my laptop, it's powered by FreeBSD instead. Basically this is due to lack of acpi and bluetooth support in OpenBSD.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 03:25:24PM -0700, Miles Keaton wrote: This is a serious question, for heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations. For years, our small company used OpenBSD for *EVERYTHING* because I personally prefer it. (We run a pretty popular database-driven website.) All mail servers, web servers, database servers, were all OpenBSD. But then some threads-issue with MySQL on OpenBSD made us switch to FreeBSD for our database server, in an emergency. The increasing load on the server was making OpenBSD buckle, and switching to FreeBSD (on the same hardware!) was a 100x speed improvement. Unfortunately, we switched other servers to FreeBSD, too, to standardize, and have been almost entirely FreeBSD, since. Ah, but this was back in 2001 or so. I know things in OpenBSD are better now. SMP. Etc. Things at our company have grown enough so that we finally have load-balanced servers, so not all traffic needs to be whomping a single server. We're setting up some new hardware, and I want us to take a look at OpenBSD again for things like webservers and database servers. (Not too happy with the SMP in FreeBSD.) Maybe even get back to our old situation of being 100% OpenBSD for everything. Which leads me to my real question for you heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations: When would you NOT use OpenBSD? When would you choose one of the other *nix over OpenBSD? Is OpenBSD appropriate for a busy webserver or super-loaded database server? I've seen old O.S. shootouts benchmarks comparing O.S.'s and often showing Linux or FreeBSD excelling at webserving or database-performance, but I don't know if that's just old data or the benchmarkers didn't have OpenBSD tweaked right. As you can tell I'd *like* to go back to OpenBSD-everywhere but thought it would be wise to ask the misc@ gang about this first. OpenBSD just isn't the fastest around (partly due to the abundance of crypto, and partly due to the fact that it just isn't that much of a priority). It also does not have the best multiprocessing or threading support around. Additionally, hardware support is not as good as from, say, Linux. Or even FreeBSD. And if the hardware is not supported, an OpenBSD box doesn't do a whole lot of good. Finally, some programs are written in a sufficiently Linux-centric fashion that porting them is rather difficult. Some have been succesfully ported, but there are not quite as many packages for OpenBSD as for, say, Linux. Or even FreeBSD. (Seeing a pattern here?) SMP is supported, but some other OSes do a better job. If you are sitting on a 16-way UltraSPARC box with many gigabytes of memory, you'd probably be better off putting Solaris on it - that's what it's for. (Do put an OpenBSD firewall in front, though.) Also, OpenBSD excels at security and code correctness. If you do not connect to the internet and do not develop OS-level software, neither count for much. A gaming box in the basement, without internet connection, would not see that much benefit from OpenBSD - dump Windows on it. And live with the occasional BSOD. Pretty much the same is true for some webserver/database server situations where the last few percents of performance are really necessary. However, I do think most of the really inefficient stuff has been improved sufficiently that the differences are not likely to be that big. But the userspace thread implementation still has its limitations. Joachim
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Hello Chris, On Wed, 05.04.2006 at 04:55:39 +0200, Chris Alatakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: holding more than 30 domain names some with lot of traffic almost what is a lot of traffic? unpatched and unupdated (3.2 stable). I bet if I left it there unpatched for the next 5 years I will not wake up one morning and find it down if will be no hardware problem. I wouldn't bet on that. Afair there were ssh problems on the way, and even something in the network stack that better should be patched. I also occasionally have OpenBSD boxen locked up in a way that they prevent SSH logins and require a reboot. But that's occasionally, eg. 1x in some five years accumulated computer uptime (over several systems), maybe less, although I'd still love to see it fixed. Best, --Toni++
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
well, If you are not happy with the SMP performance in FreeBSD you won't be in OpenBSD either. Also, MySQL performance is worse in OpenBSD due to the threading library used, I would suggest to wait at least until rthreads are complete and stable if you must make the switch nevertheless.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
* Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-05 10:44]: OpenBSD just isn't the fastest around actually, we are. for quite some stuff. we're not for some other stuff. -- 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: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: actually, we are. for quite some stuff. the install for one. i love the install. 8-) tor
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-05 10:44]: OpenBSD just isn't the fastest around actually, we are. for quite some stuff. we're not for some other stuff. Okay, that's true. Good correction. Still, for MySQL and the like, OpenBSD is unlikely to be the best performer. Joachim
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
* Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-05 13:22]: On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-05 10:44]: OpenBSD just isn't the fastest around actually, we are. for quite some stuff. we're not for some other stuff. Okay, that's true. Good correction. Still, for MySQL and the like, OpenBSD is unlikely to be the best performer. no, not and the like. for mysql with a specific (not THAT uncommon, apparently) use pattern, yes. I'm sick and tired of this OpenBSD doesn't perform well FUD. It is nothing but FUD or over-generalization. -- 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: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Additionally, hardware support is not as good as from, say, Linux. Or even FreeBSD. And if the hardware is not supported, an OpenBSD box doesn't do a whole lot of good. Really? So having a crappy or blobbed driver is better than having nothing? I disagree vehemently . Give me something that works or nothing at all. I prefer to not be surprised by it sort of works for the developer of the driver. I find this statement rather misleading and wonder why people keep parroting it.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote: Additionally, hardware support is not as good as from, say, Linux. Or even FreeBSD. And if the hardware is not supported, an OpenBSD box doesn't do a whole lot of good. Really? So having a crappy or blobbed driver is better than having nothing? I disagree vehemently . Give me something that works or nothing at all. I prefer to not be surprised by it sort of works for the developer of the driver. I find this statement rather misleading and wonder why people keep parroting it. Agreed. More folks should hang out on the Dell/Linux mailing list and take note of the pain these people endure with binary and poorly- written drivers. Sensors and hardware RAID are particularly ugly. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:04:45AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: Additionally, hardware support is not as good as from, say, Linux. Or even FreeBSD. And if the hardware is not supported, an OpenBSD box doesn't do a whole lot of good. Really? So having a crappy or blobbed driver is better than having nothing? I disagree vehemently . Give me something that works or nothing at all. I prefer to not be surprised by it sort of works for the developer of the driver. I find this statement rather misleading and wonder why people keep parroting it. Hey, me too. But I've heard more than once, here and elsewhere, that people don't want to use OpenBSD because some piece of hardware they have is not supported. That said, *I* agree with you. Still, if given a box that did not run OpenBSD for some reason - like an unsupported RAID card and a true need for RAID - and no means to replace it, there would be little other recourse than to 'not run OpenBSD', which is what the title is all about. I'm not saying that having a blobbed driver in-tree would be an improvement - however, a machine that runs is likely to be an improvement over one that doesn't, at least for a while (because, as pointed out, bugs like blobs). Joachim
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Actually, I agree. I originally had OpenBSD 3.6 installed on an i386 AT box with a SoundBlaster sound card. The sound quality was rather soft, until I pumped the audio to max (and I'm not hard of hearing). However, the dvd drive worked perfectly under mplayer. Having, never tried slackware, I installed that on the machine and now the dvd drive can't play one of the dvd's that was able to play under OpenBSD. Plus I keep getting input/output errors on the box. I never had these errors in OpenBSD 3.6. Not to mention the pain that is ALSA - golly configuring sound in linux is a pain. Why do I still use it? Well because you can hand compile (./configure; make;make install) pretty much anything. You can't do that on OpenBSD (as far as I know) if the package depends on anything major (like qt). Xine, djvu, etc... I need djvu in order to read books on netlibrary.com hence Linux. Hence basically if I want to be able to compile as many packages as possible I'll use Linux. If I want security and ease of configuration (for most non-networking tools) I'll use OpenBSD. Not to mention that OpenBSD doesn't necessitate loading modules or any of that hassel.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
I'm not saying that having a blobbed driver in-tree would be an improvement - however, a machine that runs is likely to be an improvement over one that doesn't, at least for a while (because, as pointed out, bugs like blobs). bzzzt *wrong* There is a whole market out there for this. It's called proprietary operating systems. These systems do a fine job at whatever they are doing. You are reversing the argument from what it should be.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
I run OpenBSD for almost anything that is exposed to insecure digital spaces, like the Internet, that needs to be seriously hardened. I run and Linux (or god forbid, Windows) on servers that can be a little soft because they are only exposed to trusted access. My company's main websites are run on hosted servers that we don't directly control the OS of. I believe they are running on Debian 3.1 GNU/Linux systems, and I am satisfied with the expertise of those responsible for running them, so it's not my issue. My router/firewall/VPN box is OpenBSD. It is the gateway to all the soft bits on my intranet. The intranet server runs Linux (Slackware), for multiple reasons. Generally you have a wider applications base and possibly easier access to more modern versions of tools, and more people who have expertise to draw upon. Also, there are some performance reasons, it being an SMP machine. There are two exceptions to the hard/soft rule. There are two tunnels through the hardened OBSD gateway into soft Linux servers: Mail and DMZ HTTP. For architectural reasons, my SMTP server runs on the soft Linux intranet server. However, I run qmail, a piece of software written by someone who is equally concerned about code quality and security as the OpenBSD team themselves. I am generally confident that exposing access to qmail on a soft Linux system is not a point of failure. If an exploit were found in qmail, I would need to move quickly to resolve it since Linux does not have nearly as much exploit-prevention architecture as OpenBSD. The second soft hole is access to a Linux-based low-load webserver running in my network DMZ. I chose Linux here to have wider access to more modern webserver software and applications. Due to the higher potential for exploitation, this machine is walled off into a DMZ with no access to the Intranet. It is remotely backed up by a revision tracking system on a daily basis so that it can be rebuilt or rolled back to a known good state if it is compromised. There are a couple of Windows remote-desktop machines and an ancient Windows fax server lurking in the intranet zone, but they aren't allowed to speak to the outside world except via secure VPN connections established and controlled by the OpenBSD gateway. Use systems of trusted security (OpenBSD and/or qmail) whenever compromise would be expensive. Allow less hardened systems only where compromise is not likely (intranet), or not costly (DMZ). -- Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/ I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs, and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound, activate the window, and watch the world go 'round. -Prime Mover, Rush.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Antonios Anastasiadis wrote: well, If you are not happy with the SMP performance in FreeBSD you won't be in OpenBSD either. Also, MySQL performance is worse in OpenBSD due to the threading library used, I would suggest to wait at least until rthreads are complete and stable if you must make the switch nevertheless. I have been using it for many years and I wouldn't run it on anything else thank you! many servers (7 MySQL ONLY) at the last count, and if you have some issues, may be it would be very wise to spend just a little bit of time to find out why! I did and I can only tell you that so far, the ONLY place I don't run OpenBSD is on 25 Cobalt boxes because it doesn't run on a MIPS in that box and these boxes are mostly for fun anyway, and on some VoIP servers only because the software there is design to use specific Solaris stuff! All my other servers, many of them ONLY run OpenBSD for everything, even routers that replace Cisco! I am of the opinion like many here that use what's for the job, but so far, other then the above, I found NO reason not to use it yet! Even performance is great if you just get down to it! If you use a shit load of web server for example and that's doesn't keep up with it, well it doesn't, but even that, I use CARP for sleeping well at night just in case and load sharing between many servers. Need more for traffic, I just pop in an other servers and keep going with the same array. I am not telling to use it for everything, use it for what you see fit, but I can tell you for my business, I only use it for many years now and NEVER looked back! Anytime I had any real issue, I send informations for the bug and it got fix pretty darn fast thank you! If I had any issue on performance, I check my setup and configuration. Most likely I didn't think about it properly. And you know what! So, far all the issue and performance impact I have seen ARE in many cases cause by someone not sticking with the ports packages, or what to install something else on that box like Apache 2.x etc! Just because the release of any software is the latest one and someone wants to tell his friends that he runs the latest of what ever doesn't mean it right! Any yes, all the knobs tuning shit will affect the performance NEGATIVELY. So, I still as of today didn't see a single case where not using OpenBSD affect me negatively yet! I tested the first time with 2.7 and then started to buy CD's as of 2.9 and stick with it ever since. All servers run OpenBSD here! Only exceptions to default software are Qmail instead of sendmail and DJBDNS instead of bind, but that's about it. And I can tell you, maintaining the updates on software install with the new packages sysstem is so darn easy too! I really got a bit upset with the lists of comments that spread FUD on the subject. Don't use OpenBSD if you don't want to, but that is NOT because it is not up to the job by no mean! Signing off!
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: I am of the opinion like many here that use what's for the job This is something that can't be stressed enough -- always use the tool that's most appropriate for the job. OpenBSD can do everything other operating systems do. It's where I look first for a solution. But as a professional, my employer expects me to evaluate all of the available options and chose the most appropriate solution for a task. Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. This is where OpenBSD struggles -- I can't expect commercial support for a product if I implement it in OpenBSD. It's not a technical issue; it's a market issue.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
I'm not saying that having a blobbed driver in-tree would be an improvement - however, a machine that runs is likely to be an improvement over one that doesn't, at least for a while (because, as pointed out, bugs like blobs). I prefer looking at what's supported first and asked questions on the list about it BEFORE getting it and STICKING with supported hardware and EVEN lately, I go as far as ONLY getting hardware that is friendly to the project now, meaning providing documentations, etc. So, if everyone would do the same, I bet chances are that we might see more documentations available for various project, but hey, that's just me! The bottom line is I don't get hardware that is not supported by OpenBSD an by the way, ALL my Adaptec RAID shit is in the trash from last year! No more Adaptec here.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Donald J. Ankney wrote: Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. Well, if the Vendor support is so critical, then you will be better served with OpenBSD for what they provide in their default system and that's second to none! By far! Anytime I had any problem that was specific to OpenBSD, it got fix in no time, compare to Cisco for example where I PAY SmartNet on a shit load of product and still bugs DON'T get fix! Is that Vendor support needed or wanted I asked? Problem in Cisco routers don't get address in a timely fashion, but when I had problem in OpenBGPd, that got fix quickly, even if that was a very subtle one. How ever, my BGP compatibility problem between Juniper and Cisco where Cisco run 12.4(x) with ip tcp selective-ack and peer with Juniper routers with MD5 and that runs their latest few IOS still is not fix for well, 5 months now! Or the very stupid EST/DST time display on ALL Cisco 7905 7912 IP phones even with SmartNet on a shit load of them for well over 2 1/2 years now still not fix! I have to run a NTP hacked Cisco_Brain_Dead NTP version to sync with it and switch every 6 months to go around that issue! Or the issue or drop calls with Polycom IP phones on transfer with a very well known PBX hosting solutions running on Solaris that required yearly software maintenance payback for not fixing the issue proven to be in their software. I can go one for ever on the subject, the list is very long. It is strange to me that ALL the open problem I have ARE with product I do have maintenance and software support WITH Vendor, but ALL that I run on OpenBSD runs without problem! So, the argument of Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. really doesn't mean ANYTHING to me anymore and real life example proved it many times over! Again do as you see fit and run what you like, but DON'T think using OpenBSD is a mistakes and that it is NOT supported! That's where many not using it for that argument are wrong big time. Thank you! Daniel
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Daniel Ouellet wrote: I'm not saying that having a blobbed driver in-tree would be an improvement - however, a machine that runs is likely to be an improvement over one that doesn't, at least for a while (because, as pointed out, bugs like blobs). I prefer looking at what's supported first and asked questions on the list about it BEFORE getting it and STICKING with supported hardware and EVEN lately, I go as far as ONLY getting hardware that is friendly to the project now, meaning providing documentations, etc. So, if everyone would do the same, I bet chances are that we might see more documentations available for various project, but hey, that's just me! The bottom line is I don't get hardware that is not supported by OpenBSD an by the way, ALL my Adaptec RAID shit is in the trash from last year! No more Adaptec here. Hmmm, the one time I've actually run OpenBSD was because of an obscure SCSI adapter that would only run Linux if the BIOS was disabled. I didn't really want to depend on rebooting from a floppy. As to why I lurk here, Do you really imagine that hardware that gives OpenBSD troubles is going to be nice and friendly to everything else? ... And stay that way? I even preorder a couple CDs just in case I ever really need to lay hands on one. (Do you really want to FTP when you NEED it?) What I'm vaguely familiar with and where my own errors dominate any in the OS. It is of course worthwhile knowing what is right, even if ... As to the blobbed drivers, is it better to fail early when there are options or later after you have committed? Makes a good open question.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
As to the blobbed drivers, is it better to fail early when there are options or later after you have committed? Makes a good open question. Better not to run at all if it is wrong and not design properly. This way, you don't waist many days trying to figure it out, or worst, loose very valuable data. Not sure that your question was, is it OK to run BLOB. The answer is simple. NO BLOB at all! I posted an example of miss use or borderline legal use of BLOB in commercial software a few days ago. Is that what you want? Sure is not what I want! If it needs BLOB to work, then that's the wrong hardware pick period! There is choices, pick something else.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Daniel Ouellet wrote: Donald J. Ankney wrote: Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. Well, if the Vendor support is so critical, then you will be better served with OpenBSD for what they provide in their default system and that's second to none! By far! snip Again do as you see fit and run what you like, but DON'T think using OpenBSD is a mistakes and that it is NOT supported! That's where many not using it for that argument are wrong big time. Thank you! Daniel While I generally agree with most of what Daniel says, I have to disagree here. I believe Donald's approach is correct...the right tool for the job. Sometimes the ability to call technical support for a product is critical. I recently had a problem with an OBSD router that had been running for months, then one network card started locking up (an onboard Broadcom). Completely swapped the server...same issue. I posted the information to the list, with the appropriate dmesgs, and got nothing. The problem kept happening and eventually I had to rip the box out and replace it with something else. With a vendor (Nortel) I can leverage our existing relationship and get things done. I've had issues get escalated to Senior VP level at Nortel*that* gets things done. Nortel has sent engineers on site for some very strange errors. Sure, I pay for this support...but I get support. I realize that OBSD is developed by the developers and for the developers, so I can't complain when my questions are not answered...it's their project. Unfortunately, though, there is one less OBSD router in the world. Dan
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Donald J. Ankney wrote: Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. Well, if the Vendor support is so critical, then you will be better served with OpenBSD for what they provide in their default system and that's second to none! By far! For what is provided, I'll agree. Sometimes I need things that are outside of that. For example, about 9 months ago, we needed a solution for video editing and collaboration on G5 workstations running OS X. The cheapest solution I could find for a fibre-channel SAN was Apple's XSAN. I'm not a fan of OS X Server as an operating system (it's too reliant on clumsy GUI management and customizing configuration files by hand tends to confuse it), and while I probably could have found a product that would use the same low-cost hardware in OpenBSD, I didn't want to end up having to debug code myself. As it turns out, yes the Apple code had bugs, but I had a patch about 2 weeks after reporting the bugs. If I'm running an Open Source product (which is most of the time), I generally compile it on OpenBSD. This is where OpenBSD is strong. Sometimes, though, my needs push me towards a commercial solution (XSan, VMWare, etc). I'm not going to try and implement it in an unsupported environment; even if the problem is in the product code, they aren't even going to take a bug report from me if I'm running OpenBSD. It is strange to me that ALL the open problem I have ARE with product I do have maintenance and software support WITH Vendor, but ALL that I run on OpenBSD runs without problem! I'm also going to agree that the bazaar development practice produces stabler, more secure software. Ideally, I'd have the resources to develop my own solutions when I can't find an appropriate open source product, but it doesn't always work that way and I end up recommending a software purchase. So, the argument of Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. really doesn't mean ANYTHING to me anymore and real life example proved it many times over! Again do as you see fit and run what you like, but DON'T think using OpenBSD is a mistakes and that it is NOT supported! That's where many not using it for that argument are wrong big time. I think you're misunderstanding me here -- I wasn't ever claiming that OpenBSD lacks support as on OS. I've never had trouble finding answers when I need them. Commercial products that may be able to run on OpenBSD are generally unsupported. Even many open source product won't necessarily take bug reports if it's running in a BSD instead of on a supported kernel. Again, let me stress that nothing is wrong with OpenBSD. I love OpenBSD. The problem is in a marketplace that values features above security/stability and thinks time to market is more important than writing clean, portable code.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Dan wrote: While I generally agree with most of what Daniel says, I have to disagree here. I believe Donald's approach is correct...the right tool for the job. Sometimes the ability to call technical support for a product is critical. Just like I said. Yes use the right tools for the job. I put that in my emails. I was referring at users saying NOT to use OpenBSD because of Vendor support That's the point I was arguing. Not the right tool for the job, that's always been true. No argument from me on that. I guess I just believe the right tool for the job for me is wider then most, that's all. (: Unfortunately, though, there is one less OBSD router in the world. That will change soon, but again, use what you fell is right and as for the issue with locking up (an onboard Broadcom), there was know issues on some hardware documented in the archive for that. It may or may not have been your issue, but Brad did fix some of them for me anyway. YMMV. Daniel
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
--- Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the argument of Vendor support is a sometimes criteria. really doesn't mean ANYTHING to me anymore and real life example proved it many times over! Paid vendor support is a feel good thing like insurance. When it comes time for them to help you out, you get screwed. Brian Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Hi! On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 05:00:23PM -0400, Dan wrote: [...] With a vendor (Nortel) I can leverage our existing relationship and get things done. I've had issues get escalated to Senior VP level at Nortel*that* gets things done. Nortel has sent engineers on site for some very strange errors. Sure, I pay for this support...but I get support. I realize that OBSD is developed by the developers and for the developers, so I can't complain when my questions are not answered...it's their project. Unfortunately, though, there is one less OBSD router in the world. IIRC there're consultants offering commercial services around OpenBSD, too. So you could've hired one to fix the Broadcom problem of yours, just like you paid for Nortel's on-site troubleshooting. Dan Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Hannah Schroeter wrote: IIRC there're consultants offering commercial services around OpenBSD, too. So you could've hired one to fix the Broadcom problem of yours, just like you paid for Nortel's on-site troubleshooting. Not to inflame the issue, but this isn't as solid of an argument as it appears. Knowing in advance whether you'll be able to find a consultant who knows enough about your problem to fix it is very tenuous. I'm not saying vendor support is always reliable either, but generally a commercial vendor is expected to understand the depths of their own product. If one could guarantee that the person who wrote the problematic code were always available as a consultant, the analogy might be closer, but frequently that's not the case. Even a commercialized open source OS like Red Hat Linux is going to face this issue. Then again, OpenBSD is free. No one expects it to be exactly like commercial software, and it has a lot of benefits that commercial software won't. Choose the tool that best fits the requirements. Dan Kind regards, Hannah. -- Chris 'Xenon' Hanson | Xenon @ 3D Nature | http://www.3DNature.com/ I set the wheels in motion, turn up all the machines, activate the programs, and run behind the scenes. I set the clouds in motion, turn up light and sound, activate the window, and watch the world go 'round. -Prime Mover, Rush.
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Donald J. Ankney wrote: The cheapest solution I could find for a fibre-channel SAN was Apple's XSAN. Fine, but wasn't your requirements here the cheapest solutions, not the platform on witch it run? I don't know that, only you do. But may be there was and is a very nice solutions working on OpenBSD, but that was just more expensive and that you couldn't pick. Again I don't know, but you justify it by the cheapest, not what's good for the job. Again, I use what's supported, not what's the cheapest and then asking to have it supported then. That's the difference. If I'm running an Open Source product (which is most of the time), I generally compile it on OpenBSD. This is where OpenBSD is strong. Sometimes, though, my needs push me towards a commercial solution (XSan, VMWare, etc). I'm not going to try and implement it in an unsupported environment; even if the problem is in the product code, they aren't even going to take a bug report from me if I'm running OpenBSD. That's fair, but again, wasn't that driven by the cheapest solutions, not what's right for the job. I don't know and you don't need to answer it either. I am not saying you are wrong, I am only saying that going from Vendor support to cheapest solutions change the what's right for the job argument. Not that your choice is wrong. Only that may be the argument is twisted here, that's all. If what you need is not supported on OpenBSD, then yes use something else, but if the choice of hardware you elect to use is based on the cheapest solutions and that doesn't run well on OpenBSD, is that make OpenBSD the problem here or the choice of the hardware to start with? Only you know that answer, but that's also part of what's right for the job. Only depend on what you define right for the job spec here. I'm also going to agree that the bazaar development practice produces stabler, more secure software. Ideally, I'd have the resources to develop my own solutions when I can't find an appropriate open source product, but it doesn't always work that way and I end up recommending a software purchase. I am not arguing this again. I simply said that I have no problem with what OpenBSD provide me for what it has and that it is supported very well. If what you need is default in OpenBSD, great use it, if not then use something else. Again, I refer to the starting point of using Vendor as a stand for the choices. Some may use ssh.com for their ssh solutions and that's fine. But none really could argue that they use it because of Vendor support. Well, I guess they could, but it is really valid? Again the right choice for the job. For my job OpenSSH is great and no need for ssh.com to be in the picture here. That's my choice. Again, I only argue about the use of design OpenBSD choice, like CARP instead of HSRP and VRRP. One would argue that they will pick HSRP and VRRP. over CARP because of Vendor support. I guess I would argue the same then. I would pick CARP in a hart beat because of Vendor support! (: Plus it works a lot faster and better, what's wrong with that? Same thing, if I want to use OpenBSD as internal routers on my network, then I need to change the use of ISIS to OSPF. If I don't want to do that, then I don't use OpenBSD for that. So, my choice are switch to OSPF and use OpenBSD if that's more important to me to have support from OpenBSD for my internal routers then Cisco for my internal routers, or stick with ISIS for internal routers and pay Cisco SmartNet for that then. The choice is mine to make for what I consider the right tools for the job based on the impact it has on my setup. But I have the choice. I think you're misunderstanding me here -- I wasn't ever claiming that OpenBSD lacks support as on OS. I've never had trouble finding answers when I need them. If I did, I apologizes for that, but I don't think I said that you didn't pick OpenBSD because OpenBSD doesn't support it own stuff. I stated the choice because of the Vendor support aspect of it that is for me a none argument really. But again, that's my point of view that no one need to agree with really, but never the less if one sit back and look at real life example may find it true however. Commercial products that may be able to run on OpenBSD are generally unsupported. I hope you are not saying that OpenBSD should support your commercial elected choice right? That's liek saying OpenSSH should support IBM in their own customers ssh contract where they pocket the money, but OpenSSH should fix the problem IBM customers have with IBM product on IBM support contract! I am sure you are not saying that for sure! Even many open source product won't necessarily take bug reports if it's running in a BSD instead of on a supported kernel. Nor should they. If anyone elect to do something not supported because they want to, they sure have the choice to do that. That's the opne source choice,
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On 4/5/06, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sick and tired of this OpenBSD doesn't perform well FUD. It is nothing but FUD or over-generalization. Well, I don't entirely agree. At some tasks OpenBSD feels sluggish, X performs much slower for example then on *sigh* Linux *sigh*. But I was really surprised and happy to see a webserver to be faster then FreeBSD after switching :-) It all depends on the right tool for the job I guess. Wijnand
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Slightly offtopic, but ironically a related-page that showed up for this thread is SAP Selects SSH Tectia for Secure Server Access http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060403/sfm116.html?.v=32 and talks about [bleh]total cost of ownership[/bleh], extensive product evaluations, competing solutions -- including products based on open-source software, and responsive tech support. Heh. -Nick
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Original message Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:37:48 +0200 From: Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD? To: misc@openbsd.org On 2006-04-05 19:52:16 -0400, Nick Guenther wrote: Slightly offtopic, but ironically a related-page that showed up for this thread is SAP Selects SSH Tectia for Secure Server Access http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060403/sfm116.html?.v=32 and talks about [bleh]total cost of ownership[/bleh], extensive product evaluations, competing solutions -- including products based on open-source software, and responsive tech support. I wonder how much they pay for their 1700 servers plus support? List price would be 1M Euro (for licenses only). They could hire some OpenSSH developers fulltime for less. heh. once again demonstrating it's more about people in suits only wanting to work with more people in suits. having 2 or 3 of the right people for a task is substantially cheaper than having to pay for all the suits and beauracracy. Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Wijnand Wiersma wrote: On 4/5/06, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sick and tired of this OpenBSD doesn't perform well FUD. It is nothing but FUD or over-generalization. Well, I don't entirely agree. At some tasks OpenBSD feels sluggish, X performs much slower for example then on *sigh* Linux *sigh*. So, why blame OpenBSD for that then. Did they design it? I will return that to you the same way then. Is PF run as well and fast on Linux, or at all for some distributions then compare to OpenBSD? But is there anything better at this time however? Don't answer the above. Just sit back and think for yourself. However, isn't at the same time your sluggish operation that found many bugs, some of witch were there for 10 years+ in the same X. All because of how the OpenBSD is design. I don't know, I would start to argue looking at the finding at large that if it doesn't work well on OpenBSD, may be it is a software that may be is not design properly, just may be... Again, don't answer that, but dig the archive for proof. Again use the proper tools for the job based on your requirements, but be fair in your statements as well. But I was really surprised and happy to see a webserver to be faster then FreeBSD after switching :-) And that isn't maintain by the project now? See what I mean. You can't blame the project for things that have nothing to do with. But for what they do, it sure is very well done and if you stick with what's supported, you will be amaze at what you get! It all depends on the right tool for the job I guess. Yes it does!
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Thursday 06 April 2006 06:29, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote: If one could guarantee that the person who wrote the problematic code were always available as a consultant, the analogy might be closer, but frequently that's not the case. Even a commercialized open source OS like Red Hat Linux is going to face this issue. You wont get any such guarantees from any commercial vendor either. it's not like they offer support for EOL'ed products forever. --- Lars Hansson
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Thursday 06 April 2006 05:00, Dan wrote: I recently had a problem with an OBSD router that had been running for months, then one network card started locking up (an onboard Broadcom). Completely swapped the server...same issue. I posted the information to the list, with the appropriate dmesgs, and got nothing. The problem kept happening and eventually I had to rip the box out and replace it with something else. How do you know the vendor would have been able to help you? Unless you're a really big client or have a big support contract with, say Nortel or Cisco, they're not going to give you the time of day. At least that's how it is with Cisco, in my experience. And if you have purchased your gear second-hand or refurbished you can kiss any kind of support goodbye. With a vendor (Nortel) I can leverage our existing relationship and get things done. I've had issues get escalated to Senior VP level at Nortel*that* gets things done. Nortel has sent engineers on site for some very strange errors. Sure, I pay for this support...but I get support. You could just as well pay an OBSD consultant or buy an OpenBSD router from a company that offers support. --- Lars Hansson
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Thanks everyone for all of your feedback. Since we're not using any strange hardware (just regular Opteron/Xeon SCSI servers with LSI MegaRaid cards), and since we never expect commerical support, then I guess that answers that. Wondering... since I brought up MySQL, and a few people (thanks Henning!) said MySQL in particular has problems, I didn't mention that we're about to ditch MySQL anyway, and complete our conversion to PostgreSQL, so I wonder... Does PostgreSQL have the same problems as MySQL on OpenBSD?
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Lars Hansson wrote: On Thursday 06 April 2006 05:00, Dan wrote: I recently had a problem with an OBSD router that had been running for months, then one network card started locking up (an onboard Broadcom). Completely swapped the server...same issue. I posted the information to the list, with the appropriate dmesgs, and got nothing. The problem kept happening and eventually I had to rip the box out and replace it with something else. How do you know the vendor would have been able to help you? Unless you're a really big client or have a big support contract with, say Nortel or Cisco, they're not going to give you the time of day. At least that's how it is with Cisco, in my experience. And if you have purchased your gear second-hand or refurbished you can kiss any kind of support goodbye. Cisco claims that their Catalyst 2950 supports up to 250 VLANs. Hardly. The switch IOS is limited to 71 IDBs, which effectively caps us at ~19 VLANs, if I remember correctly. Our only recourse is to return the hardware, they won't even consider patching it to support additional interfaces (although it certainly could). This is their way of pushing you up to their 3700 series switches. With a vendor (Nortel) I can leverage our existing relationship and get things done. I've had issues get escalated to Senior VP level at Nortel*that* gets things done. Nortel has sent engineers on site for some very strange errors. Sure, I pay for this support...but I get support. You could just as well pay an OBSD consultant or buy an OpenBSD router from a company that offers support. http://www.openbsd.org/support.html -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote: Hannah Schroeter wrote: IIRC there're consultants offering commercial services around OpenBSD, too. So you could've hired one to fix the Broadcom problem of yours, just like you paid for Nortel's on-site troubleshooting. Not to inflame the issue, but this isn't as solid of an argument as it appears. Knowing in advance whether you'll be able to find a consultant who knows enough about your problem to fix it is very tenuous. I'm not saying vendor support is always reliable either, but generally a commercial vendor is expected to understand the depths of their own product. The ONLY difference is that with a Vendor, you can pick a telephone can call a number, but then what's the difference after that I ask you? Example: - Customer required to have Vendor support by insecure manager. - So, customer get SmartNet from Cisco. - Manager fell great and secure. Time pass. - Problem come up. - Use phone and call. - Get the usual auto answer. Please listen carefully as our routing have change. For router support press 1. For firewall support press 2... - Wait, wait, wait some more. - Get someone to take your information for a queue call back. - Hang up. Soon get an personal email with a bunch of URL for self support. Most of with you already read if you did your homework. - Wait some more. - Get a call back from someone asking you to do show tech-support and go to the Cisco web interface and past that in there so they will get the information and call you back when they have looked at it over. - Do the above and wait some more. - Get a few more emails from the same tech support with more URL for you to read. - None worked for you, so get more emails with more URL. - In the end, if you do your homework, you find your own problem as you know more then the guys that pick up your tickets anyway. - You search on google and bang found your answer! - Apply it to your system all gets better - Manager is happy and tell everyone. - See this is great to have support from Cisco We get our problem solved when we have any. - In between time, your Cisco guys call you back a week later and tell you that you should try this. - You answer thanks, but I solved my problem. - Cisco support close the ticket with yet an other problem solved in their stats. - Cisco brag about great support and customer satisfaction. - A few days later you get a survey via emails asking you to rate the Cisco support you got for them to improve their support. - You pass it to your manager as he wants to control the PR of your company, he answer it with all praise to Cisco. - Next year come and your manager renew the same SmartNet contract. Sound to familiar to some thanks! That's what you get with Vendor support, just fussy false feeling to be taken care of. But I asked you, when is the last time you got an email form the guy that actually compile the ISO that runs on your Cisco box for example. May be that one might understand your problem? With OpenBSD, you have a bug with PF, you may well get an email back from Daniel. You have a bug with NTP, Henning may well answer you. You have a bug with OpenBGPd, Henning or Claudio may well answer you. You have a bug with a drive in the PCI buss or something, you may well get an answer from Brad, etc. Should I continue! What Vendor will provide you answers from the same people that design the product I asked you. So, with Vendor is more qualify to fix the issue correctly the first time! What Vendor will send you diff the same day to fix issue. What Vendor will address security issue in a timely fashion? I don't know but it sound to me very clear witch one I would go with. I guess what's really missing to be exactly the same for OpenBSD and the various Vendor is this. A phone number that you can call that gets an auto attendant answer with the standard shit like Please pay attentions as your routing have changed, etc Then you are asked to enter your email address using your touch tone phone after witch the system hangup and process it as such. - You select 1 for PF support, so you get a personal email back with the usual meaning less ticket number in it and the usual URL, but this time exactly with the proper information in that email with: http://openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html Or you get this: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html when you press 2 for installation support, etc. And as a bonus you get a bunch more URL that are all query for Google to return the same type of URL stuff that Cisco would return to you for their own support contract. Oh and don't forget the show tech-support part, same thing here as usual always asked here, but instead is called dmesg and the email address you are asked to send it at is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Same thing! But then your manager have the same fussy feeling and your problem get solved the same way anyway. Doesn't this sound very familiar and similar to you? I
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Just out of curiosity why did your company decide to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql? Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql everywhere these days... Or at least you hear about it more it seems...
When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
This is a serious question, for heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations. For years, our small company used OpenBSD for *EVERYTHING* because I personally prefer it. (We run a pretty popular database-driven website.) All mail servers, web servers, database servers, were all OpenBSD. But then some threads-issue with MySQL on OpenBSD made us switch to FreeBSD for our database server, in an emergency. The increasing load on the server was making OpenBSD buckle, and switching to FreeBSD (on the same hardware!) was a 100x speed improvement. Unfortunately, we switched other servers to FreeBSD, too, to standardize, and have been almost entirely FreeBSD, since. Ah, but this was back in 2001 or so. I know things in OpenBSD are better now. SMP. Etc. Things at our company have grown enough so that we finally have load-balanced servers, so not all traffic needs to be whomping a single server. We're setting up some new hardware, and I want us to take a look at OpenBSD again for things like webservers and database servers. (Not too happy with the SMP in FreeBSD.) Maybe even get back to our old situation of being 100% OpenBSD for everything. Which leads me to my real question for you heavy users of OpenBSD in big/production/heavy-traffic situations: When would you NOT use OpenBSD? When would you choose one of the other *nix over OpenBSD? Is OpenBSD appropriate for a busy webserver or super-loaded database server? I've seen old O.S. shootouts benchmarks comparing O.S.'s and often showing Linux or FreeBSD excelling at webserving or database-performance, but I don't know if that's just old data or the benchmarkers didn't have OpenBSD tweaked right. As you can tell I'd *like* to go back to OpenBSD-everywhere but thought it would be wise to ask the misc@ gang about this first. Thanks!
Re: When would you NOT use OpenBSD?
Lars Hansson wrote: On Wednesday 05 April 2006 06:25, Miles Keaton wrote: When would you NOT use OpenBSD? When you run applications that *REALLY* needs SMP, not that there are a lot of those. Or when your application simply do not run on OpenBSD for some reason. When would you choose one of the other *nix over OpenBSD? When they're more suitable for the task. Not that it has ever been the case for me. Is OpenBSD appropriate for a busy webserver or super-loaded database server? Webserver yes. Super-loaded MySql server? Dunno, depends on how much MySql sucks these days. I've seen old O.S. shootouts benchmarks comparing O.S.'s and often showing Linux or FreeBSD excelling at webserving or database-performance, but I don't know if that's just old data or the benchmarkers didn't have OpenBSD tweaked right. Benchmarks are like assholes, everyone has one but you're better off only minding your own. Lars Hansson Loved the last one so I wanna add that I m comming from a Linux background, used freebsd for years, I m gonna never regret I found OpenBsd in the way. My Last Linux box (Suse) was the day I found my router in my office with a kernel panic message after 1 year working fine patched up as always. In the same box without any hardware changes I run now an Openbsd Webserver from then till now holding more than 30 domain names some with lot of traffic almost unpatched and unupdated (3.2 stable). I bet if I left it there unpatched for the next 5 years I will not wake up one morning and find it down if will be no hardware problem. And yes thats not the proper way to go as an administrator but thats what I like on Openbsd. Very glad for the $1 from mozzila I hope We can do that too one day. -Chris. PS. Yes When I want to play Fancy Games and just kill my time I have no prob using Windows. I had even a Game Server in Openbsd and it wasn t never down.
