And you link a report from 2018 in 2020, currently we are at OpenBSD 6.6. Maybe
instead of spamming stupidity on the mailing list do the benchmarks yourself
with current systems on the same hardware and publish those results.
I personally don't have any issues with OpenBSD being drastically
On 2020-01-30 10:57, Handreas wrote:
> "Can't say much for the performance of a suite of servers which have
> all been taken down to handle the security threat du jour."
>
> Repeat it again?
>
"Can't say much for the performance of a suite of servers which have
all been taken down to handle the security threat du jour."
Repeat it again?
https://www.qualys.com/2020/01/28/cve-2020-7247/lpe-rce-opensmtpd.txt?_ga=2.120267019.2069438099.1580381821-1178380388.1580381821
adresine sahip
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:25 PM Hamd wrote:
> Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
> my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
>
> This will be my last post here in misc.
>
> Default setups, no config. changes.
> Just patches installed.
> Same hardware.
>
> FreeBSD:
> freebsd@test:~ #
On 2020-01-09 06:22, Hamd wrote:
Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
This will be my last post here in misc.
Default setups, no config. changes.
Just patches installed.
Same hardware.
FreeBSD:
freebsd@test:~ # time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:25 PM Hamd wrote:
> Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
> my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
>
> This will be my last post here in misc.
>
> Default setups, no config. changes.
> Just patches installed.
> Same hardware.
>
> FreeBSD:
> freebsd@test:~ #
On 1/9/20 4:37 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
On 1/9/20 3:22 PM, Hamd wrote:
FreeBSD:
freebsd@test:~ # time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=4k
count=5
&& sync"
5+0 records in
5+0 records out
20480 bytes transferred in 0.239590 secs (854792500 bytes/sec)
0.000u 0.195s 0:00.25
On 1/9/20 3:22 PM, Hamd wrote:
FreeBSD:
freebsd@test:~ # time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=4k count=5
&& sync"
5+0 records in
5+0 records out
20480 bytes transferred in 0.239590 secs (854792500 bytes/sec)
0.000u 0.195s 0:00.25 76.0% 22+198k 0+1568io 0pf+0w
Result:
On 17:22 Thu 09 Jan, Hamd wrote:
> Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
> my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
>
> This will be my last post here in misc.
>
> Default setups, no config. changes.
> Just patches installed.
> Same hardware.
>
> FreeBSD:
> freebsd@test:~ # time sh -c
just out of curiosity: did you do the FreeBSD test on ZFS with
compression enabled?
Am 09.01.20 um 15:22 schrieb Hamd:
Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
This will be my last post here in misc.
Default setups, no config. changes.
Just
Joe, are you a joke? Please stop insulting me, this is not
my/your_personal_fancy_forum.
This will be my last post here in misc.
Default setups, no config. changes.
Just patches installed.
Same hardware.
FreeBSD:
freebsd@test:~ # time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=4k count=5
&&
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:57:37 +0300
Hamd wrote:
> Under less than 24 hours, after my post, the misc has received 2 or 3
> brand new questions/posts regarding slow*. The problem is, well,
> obviously not me, personally.
> For the Dev Team (All of 'em. Volunteer, beer-teer, pay-teer ones): I
>
Hi Karel,
Thanks, for the correction...
I thought zfs was bigger than that ;)
Thanks
On Wednesday, 8 January 2020, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
>
> On 1/8/20 12:44 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
>
>> As far as im aware there are 2 concerns about ZFS,
>> 1) its license is not BSD /ISC you can use it and
On 1/8/20 12:44 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
As far as im aware there are 2 concerns about ZFS,
1) its license is not BSD /ISC you can use it and make money and not be sued,
but it is more restrictive than BSD / ISC
Yes, CDDL seems to be a no go based on past CDDL discussion which is
available
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 at 7:35 AM
From: "Hamd"
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: OpenBSD's extremely poor network/disk performance?
It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
https://www.phoronix.com/sca
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:57:37PM +0300, Hamd wrote:
> Under less than 24 hours, after my post, the misc has received 2 or 3 brand
> new questions/posts regarding slow*.
Well, in the case of my issue, I am reasonably certain that this isn't
an issue with LibreSSL. I raised it as an issue of
"4.) The code is right there, you are invited to improve the situation."
Simple answer: I'm not a developer, I'm a user. A regular one.
Under less than 24 hours, after my post, the misc has received 2 or 3 brand
new questions/posts regarding slow*. The problem is, well, obviously not
me,
Howdy Stuart,
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:17, Stuart Longland wrote:
>
> On 8/1/20 1:25 am, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > And yes, ffs performance sucks, but nor me nor you provide any diff to
> > change that so we can just shut up and use what's available.
>
> Okay, question is if not ffs, then what?
>
On 8/1/20 1:25 am, Karel Gardas wrote:
> And yes, ffs performance sucks, but nor me nor you provide any diff to
> change that so we can just shut up and use what's available.
Okay, question is if not ffs, then what?
- Other BSDs have ZFS… is it viable to port that to OpenBSD? (Maybe
it's been
There might be something wrong with your setup. I routinely get 500+ MB/s disk
and full 1 GBit Ethernet.
> On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Hamd wrote:
>
> It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
>
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:33:46AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > In reality, when you dig down, often you find that there's another
> > reason for the issue.?? I was recently trying to substitute libressl
> > into an openssl environment.?? Performance tanked.?? Some checking
> > showed the
On 1/7/20 3:35 PM, Hamd wrote:
It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article=8-linux-bsd=1
Read comments to the article, I already done mine:
On Jan 7, 2020 9:18 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:47:02PM +, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> > Hamd writes:
> > > It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> > > ... lists full of the uninteresting type of wine and that their
> > > twitterings -still-
1.) OpenBSD never stated that ultimate performance is their goal, but
clean maintainable code is, and thus in case of a compromise the
developers will choose clean code over performance.
2.) to quote Breandan Gregg: "All benchmarks are wrong until proven
otherwise"
3.) It's 2020 and you quote a
It's 2020 and you are sending a link to article from 2018?
Anyway, you (phoronix) compare '90 ffs technology with state of the art
of current storage/fs in linuxes/bsd represented by XFS/Ext4 and ZFS
filesystems and you compare with the winner right? Kind of unfair don't
you think?
And
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 05:35:13PM +0300, Hamd wrote:
> It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
I will get right on fixing these issues for you.
--
I'm not entirely sure you
2020-01-07 15:35 GMT+01:00, Hamd :
> It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article=8-linux-bsd=1
>
> My reference is not -only- that url, of course. My reference is my OpenBSD,
>
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:47:02PM +, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> Hamd writes:
> > It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> > ... lists full of the uninteresting type of wine and that their
> > twitterings -still- don't include any code.
>
> Yes. Yes it is.
>
> Can't say
Hamd writes:
> It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
> ... lists full of the uninteresting type of wine and that their
> twitterings -still- don't include any code.
Yes. Yes it is.
Can't say much for the performance of a suite of servers which have
all been taken down to
It's 2020 and it's -still- sad to see OpenBSD -still- has the
lowest/poorest (general/overall) performance ever:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article=8-linux-bsd=1
My reference is not -only- that url, of course. My reference is my OpenBSD,
giving ~8 MB/s file transfer/network/disk
30 matches
Mail list logo
