On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 03:14:12PM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Henning Brauer wrote:
OpenBSD scales very well an most tasks you'll find.
There are some exceptions tho. That unfortunately includes threads.
Out of curiosity, what happens when you run apache on SMP hardware
where the
On 5/29/06, Marian Hettwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGsnip
so what is best served?
exactly what I said. I've used opensbd to serve just
about everything as a service provider. includes stuff
like mysql/postgresql, apache, php, perl, mail, squid,
pf and on down the line. My opinion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karsten McMinn wrote:
Back to the OP: there isn't any situation in the
net facing server world that is not best served
with OpenBSD.
best served in the net server world is pretty hard stuff.
What is best served? In a business environment best
ok everybody.
Let's keep pretending that openbsd is faster and more scalable in
desktop than Linux. (in the same way Linux fans pretend their systems
are more secure)
Of course, everybody knows that reiserfs isn't a match for openbsd's
multi-year-old ffs.
Also everybody knows that openbsd scales
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:50:35PM +0300, Antonios Anastasiadis wrote:
[...]
I use OpenBSD too for critical systems, but some guys here really need
to wake up.
Troll.
Bernd
Hi,
On 5/29/06, Bernd Schoeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:50:35PM +0300, Antonios Anastasiadis wrote:
[...]
I use OpenBSD too for critical systems, but some guys here really need
to wake up.
Troll.
Can we all please kill this thread? This has stopped educating a
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 00:50, Antonios Anastasiadis wrote:
Let's keep pretending that openbsd is faster and more scalable in
desktop than Linux. (in the same way Linux fans pretend their systems
are more secure)
Depends on your needs. Also, define scalability in a desktop context. Or in
any
STeve Andre' wrote:
You know, all this discussion of the scalability of OpenBSD is really
fruitless.
Agreed. Puffer fish do not have scales, therefore OpenBSD is not
scalable at all.
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:37:11PM -0400, Adam wrote:
PF and spamd, for example. bgpd may be a good candidate, too.
Those scale better on openbsd than they do on freebsd and netbsd? Have
you actually tested this?
No, I neither do benchmarking nor have I equipment and a large
enough network
On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:06:33 +0200 Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:37:11PM -0400, Adam wrote:
PF and spamd, for example. bgpd may be a good candidate, too.
Those scale better on openbsd than they do on freebsd and netbsd? Have
you actually tested
Hi,
On Sunday, 28. May 2006 19:06, Matthias Kilian wrote:
...
Oh, but comparing general performance of Linux vs. OpenBSD on a
typical desktop/development PC, I *can* tell you that OpenBSD
performs much better, especially when the machine does lots of IO
in the background.
A daring statement.
Adam wrote:
The question was about scalability.
I keep seeing that term. Is it supposed to mean something?
Methinks there is a problem with scalability if you cannot even
add two numbers together. (Well maybe with Lisp and infinite tapes)
Dijkstra had an analogy with comparing, as a means of
On Sun, 28 May 2006 13:58:39 -0500 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam wrote:
The question was about scalability.
I keep seeing that term. Is it supposed to mean something?
Yes, and retarded posts like this aren't needed thanks.
An application which has evolved under Linux
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 08:08:54PM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
[...]
(sometimes I've the impression that Linux is only fast when idling).
This statement is clearly ridiculous.
No, just my personal experience.
This whole discussion is ridiculous and pointless.
May be.
There is no such
Adam wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 13:58:39 -0500 Tony Abernethy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam wrote:
The question was about scalability.
I keep seeing that term. Is it supposed to mean something?
Yes, and retarded posts like this aren't needed thanks.
Then what precisely is it
On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:39:05 -0500 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then what precisely is it supposed to mean?
Running your Linux programs is not an adequate answer.
If don't understand the question (which wasn't directed at you) then
don't reply. Linux programs have nothing to do
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 03:07:02PM -0400, Adam wrote:
The question was about scalability.
I keep seeing that term. Is it supposed to mean something?
Yes, and retarded posts like this aren't needed thanks.
It isn't retarded. The term *is* fuzzy, and often abused, especially
in
* Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-28 21:17]:
Pretending openbsd scales well at these things, or pretending its other
benefits make up for this doesn't change anything. Nobody is saying
scalability is all that matters, I just want to know what the mysterious
task that openbsd scales well at
Henning Brauer wrote:
OpenBSD scales very well an most tasks you'll find.
There are some exceptions tho. That unfortunately includes threads.
Out of curiosity, what happens when you run apache on SMP hardware
where the libraries are not thread safe? (or whatever it's called)
Adam uttered following nonsense.
Linux programs have nothing to do with anything,
That is a good characterization of SMP and scaling?
and your desire to make a big stupid thread of bullshit is quite annoying.
You are annoyed.
My desire is a small thread.
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:45, Adam wrote:
Again, if you can't answer the question I asked Henning, then do not
reply.
Funny how you did not answer the question Henning asked you.
---
Lars Hansson
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:07, Adam wrote:
I think if you don't even understand a simple question, and have no
way to answer, you shouldn't bother responding with nonsense.
Its a very simple question. I know openbsd scales poorly in SMP, I
know it scales poorly using apache, sendmail, courier,
On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:58:12 +0200 Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenBSD scales very well an most tasks you'll find.
There are some exceptions tho. That unfortunately includes threads.
I don't find that actually. Apart from threads, there's also anything
that needs 1GB MAXDSIZ
On Sunday 28 May 2006 23:05, Lars Hansson wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:07, Adam wrote:
I think if you don't even understand a simple question, and have no
way to answer, you shouldn't bother responding with nonsense.
Its a very simple question. I know openbsd scales poorly in SMP, I
STeve Andre' wrote:
You know, all this discussion of the scalability of OpenBSD is really
fruitless. Every application is different, and a multitude of factors
come into play here, not the least of which is the hardware involved
in the equation, so with all the other questions like this, the
* Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-27 04:41]:
On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:18:03 +0200 Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:48:46PM -0400, Adam wrote:
in soem cases, we blow away everybody else easily.
What cases are those?
PF and spamd, for example. bgpd may be
On 5/26/06, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of wasting your time with the question and everyone else's
time suffering it, JUST TRY THE OS. If it meets your scalability/
performance needs, GREAT! If it doesn't, find something else that
does.
I don't think your are striking the
On May 25, 2006, at 4:53 PM, akonsu wrote:
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this
atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
but the reviews and benchmarks that i could find are about two
years old or
so. does anyone
On Fri, 26 May 2006 03:01:36 +0200 Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-25 23:02]:
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS.
nonsense.
depends heavily on what exactly you are going to do.
in soem cases, we blow away everybody else
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:48:46PM -0400, Adam wrote:
in soem cases, we blow away everybody else easily.
What cases are those?
PF and spamd, for example. bgpd may be a good candidate, too.
Ciao,
Kili
On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:18:03 +0200 Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:48:46PM -0400, Adam wrote:
in soem cases, we blow away everybody else easily.
What cases are those?
PF and spamd, for example. bgpd may be a good candidate, too.
Those scale better
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
but the reviews and benchmarks that i could find are about two years old or
so. does anyone know whether performance has improved since? i am
On 5/25/06, akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
but the reviews and benchmarks that i could find are about two years old or
so. does anyone know
On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:53:26 -0700, akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this
atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
but the reviews and benchmarks that i could find are about two years
On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:53:26 -0700 akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS.
Right.
so. does anyone know whether performance has improved since?
What does performance have to do with it? You asked about scalability.
OpenBSD
On 5/25/06, Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:53:26 -0700, akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
hello,
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this
atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
but the reviews and
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
I read somewhere that Windows was more Scalable tha linux too.
I'm sure you should go run that.
-Bob
On 5/25/06, Nick Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also From the beginning, every line of code has been continually
audited for flaws and vulnerabilities (this is an ongoing process
since hackers are always developing new techniques)
It's not that 'hackers' are making new techniques as much as
As a matter of fact, yes, Linux and FreeBSD are indeed more scalable
and usually faster in heavy workloads that involve databases, heavy
input/output loads etc in multiprocessor systems.
However, the question here is:
Are you willing to sacrifice OpenBSD's security and correctness to get
the SMP
thank you for telling me what i should do. this makes life much easier.
2006/5/25, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS. this
atricle,
for example. http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3415651
I read somewhere that
Hi
so. does anyone know whether performance has improved since? i am asking
this question just for educational purposes.
thanks
konstantin
Your question is purely hypothetical!
Does anyone know whether performance has improved since?, since when?
Compared to what? Running what services?
* akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-25 23:02]:
i read somewhere that openbsd is not as scalable as other OS.
nonsense.
depends heavily on what exactly you are going to do.
in soem cases, we blow away everybody else easily.
in same cases, others are faster.
in some cases, others crash faster :)
--- Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we need to keep in mind, is that techincally, just because we
keep our mind in security for the first concern, it should not take
as an excuse for delivering slow processing.
Sacrifice correctness for speed is completing nonsense. I cannot even
There some things in life i do really enjoy playing with. I like
programming and related things, right now i am working on a series of
programs for replacing traditional unix tools, dues to security,
performance and even license concerns. I believe i will have
everything done in the end of the up
Hello everybody,
For example I'm installing an OpenBSD box to perform a text file
processing, and are 8 files, 1GB each one, every hour; my AWK script
worked well in Linux and Solaris and realy I think that it will work
fine in OpenBSD too.
I will tell you the results.
Regards,
Julian
You are welcome!
PS: I am payed to maked others life simple, and in general the simpler
the life the more expensive the bill gets.
On 5/25/06, akonsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thank you for telling me what i should do. this makes life much easier.
2006/5/25, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i
46 matches
Mail list logo
