* Jordi Espasa Clofent jordi.esp...@opengea.org [2009-09-15 17:12]:
If I may ask here. One thing that would be nice for the records is to
get a little bit more details on your setup doing that if you have no
problem providing it obviously. Specially the PF configuration tie to
this bgp
* Florian Fuessl f...@degnet.de [2009-09-15 17:31]:
Hi Henning,
-Original Message-
From: owner-m...@[...] on Behalf
Of Henning Brauer
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
* Nick n...@holland-consulting.net [2009-09-15 13:52
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
Hah. That's why he did not update his site since 2003. Do you realy think
that OpenBSD 3.4 and 4.6 are the same?
nobody is arguing 3.4 and 4.6 is the same.
or that that particular benchmark has any more than historic value..
If I may ask here. One thing that would be nice for the records is to
get a little bit more details on your setup doing that if you have no
problem providing it obviously. Specially the PF configuration tie to
this bgp router as well may well be very educating to many.
it doesn't run pf.
* Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net [2009-09-15 19:14]:
If I may ask here. One thing that would be nice for the records is to
get a little bit more details on your setup doing that if you have
no problem providing it obviously. Specially the PF configuration
tie to this bgp router as
so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to
instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time
tuning setups? lost time searching on google instead of reading
manuals?
--
jake...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:28:33PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
Hah. That's why he did not update his site since 2003. Do you realy think
that OpenBSD 3.4 and 4.6 are the same?
nobody is arguing 3.4 and 4.6 is the
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to
instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time
tuning setups? lost time searching on google instead of reading
manuals?
Lost time drinking yourself
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:41:01PM -0500, Marco Peereboom said that
the devs are sitting around smug saying nothing until someone comes
up with this theme again and then they send something like:
i have a bgp machine forwarding 800MBit/s of real world generic
internet
this thread is fucking stupid.
consider that the majority of machines are horribly underutilized, even
in large organizations where some of the machines are under heavy load.
the reason that everyone here is so dismissive of benchmarks is that
they do not translate to real world results.
From: OpenBSD general usage list misc@openbsd.org
this thread is fucking stupid.
I didn't need the second part...
How about just saying something when the thread is NOT stupid.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:46 -0400 Tom Smith wrote:
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while
Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of
Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server,
etc and point out that the old article
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 03:39:23PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
this thread is fucking stupid.
consider that the majority of machines are horribly underutilized, even
in large organizations where some of the machines are under heavy load.
the reason that everyone here is so dismissive
I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course
true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. I preffer to
say OpenBSD is bugfree. Otherwise, it's still the best OS ever.
--
merlyn
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote:
I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course
true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. I preffer to
say
Well, I've heard that it needs to be mauve,because that has more RAM,
otherwise it's a fabulous OS.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Milan BartoE! merlyn...@gmail.com wrote:
I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
performance
I still hear people telling that
old 64-bit blowfish?
2009/9/16 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote:
I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course
true,
First, it uses 128-bits, and second, the practical attacks against
blowfish are what exactly?
Third, if you care, use softraid.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote:
old 64-bit blowfish?
2009/9/16 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at
First, it uses 128-bits
Thank You for telling, I'm much stiller now.
Third, if you care, use softraid.
Already reading man page, thanks :-)
2009/9/16 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com:
First, it uses 128-bits, and second, the practical attacks against
blowfish are what exactly?
Third, if
- is it easy to upgrade the machines?
Again. OpenBSD really sucks at this one. Building from source is light years
more difficult than 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade, or 'yum upgrade' or
the
like. And you've got to track updates for ports yourself, making those even
more difficult to
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:59:43PM -0700, 4625 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:46 -0400 Tom Smith wrote:
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while
Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of
Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:02:16PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:41:01PM -0500, Marco Peereboom said that
the devs are sitting around smug saying nothing until someone comes
up with this theme again and then they send something like:
i have a bgp
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:28:33PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
Hah. That's why he did not update his site since 2003. Do you realy think
that OpenBSD 3.4 and 4.6 are the same?
nobody is arguing 3.4 and 4.6 is the
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:06:46 +0100 Owain Ainsworth wrote:
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that
while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and
PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop
or mail server, etc and point out that
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +, Jacob Meuser said that
so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to
instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time
tuning setups? lost time searching on google instead of reading
manuals?
i am afraid my world
* Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com [2009-09-15 18:16:47]:
First, it uses 128-bits, and second, the practical attacks against
blowfish are what exactly?
_Only_ 128 bits? It clearly needs more. More bits man, more bits!
It's not about the number of bits.
--
Travers Buda
Third, if you
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:04:18PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote:
I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course
true,
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:09:32AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +, Jacob Meuser said that
so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to
instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time
tuning setups? lost time
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:59:43PM -0700, 4625 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:46 -0400 Tom Smith wrote:
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while
Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of
Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:28:33PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
the devs are sitting around smug saying nothing until someone comes
up with this theme again and then they send something like:
i have a bgp
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:03:06PM -0700, 4625 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:06:46 +0100 Owain Ainsworth wrote:
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that
while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and
PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:43:34 +1000, Aaron Mason wrote:
I'm all for just shelving this argument - nobody's going to agree.
I must disagree with that conclusion... I do agree with the shelving.
*** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I am subscribed to the list.
Mail to the sender address that does
On Monday 14 September 2009 13:39:46 Tom Smith wrote:
Hi Misc,
Even though this article: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability was many years
ago and performance in OpenBSD had improved greatly since that time, I
still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
performance. They
Tom Smith wrote:
3. pf, carp, OpenBGPD
pfsync
Regards,
-Lars
I've heard a different version of that one: ...is like teaching a pig to
sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Saludos,
Jose.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:44:55 -0400, STeve Andre' and...@msu.edu wrote:
Attempting to prove the worth of OpenBSD to folks who are not able to
figure things
STeve Andre' wrote:
On Monday 14 September 2009 13:39:46 Tom Smith wrote:
Hi Misc,
Even though this article: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability was many years
ago and performance in OpenBSD had improved greatly since that time, I
still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD
If you think micro benchmarks are worth anything you have a micro
understanding of the problem.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:39:46PM -0400, Tom Smith wrote:
Hi Misc,
Even though this article: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability was many years ago
and performance in OpenBSD had improved greatly
On 9/14/2009 2:53 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you think micro benchmarks are worth anything you have a micro
understanding of the problem.
You shouldn't make generalizations like that. What if his primary
workload is micro benchmarks?
Then it is of micro importance.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:46:13PM -0400, Steve Shockley wrote:
On 9/14/2009 2:53 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you think micro benchmarks are worth anything you have a micro
understanding of the problem.
You shouldn't make generalizations like that. What
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:39:46PM -0400, Tom Smith wrote:
Hi Misc,
Even though this article: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability was many years ago
and performance in OpenBSD had improved greatly since that time, I still
hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD performance.
hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not actually
measure what he assumed they would.
and he was open to get patches to remedy those problems.
general dislike of any benchmark in the world is also part
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:15:27 +0200
frantisek holop min...@obiit.org wrote:
hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not
actually measure what he assumed they would.
and he was open to get patches to
frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not actually
measure what he assumed they would.
and he was open to get patches to remedy those problems.
sarcasmand always showed total
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:43:27AM +0200, Robert wrote:
| On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:15:27 +0200
| frantisek holop min...@obiit.org wrote:
|
| hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
| like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not
| actually
101 - 144 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
