Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:42:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: johan Hendriks <joh.hendriks@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 4.x era Message-ID: <1315784569.65036.YahooMailClassic@web113505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(4.x nostalgia belongs to -chat, not to -arch)=0A=0AI also have good memori= es of the 4.x era, but I tried=0Areinstalling not long ago and it didn't re= ally look=0Aall that great. Objectively I think part of the glory=0Aof thos= e days was the momentum building around the=0Aplatform (the BSDi code was m= erging, the performance=0Aand stability was way above anything else).=0A=0A= Nowadays I find 9.x extremely interesting and in=0Acertain way it's also th= e end of an era: the GNU=0Astuff and ZFS is at the top of what will ever be= in=0Abase. This means that we will have to be focusing=0Aon newer technolo= gies from now on.=0A=0AOh and We are still doing quite well in performance= =0Aand stability, and Netcraft confirms it ;) :=0A=0A"For the first time th= is year, FreeBSD has the=0Alargest share of hosting providers in the top 10= =0Awith half of them running FreeBSD servers. Of the=0Aother hosting provid= ers in the top 10, 4 run Linux=0Aand 1 uses Windows Server 2008."=0A=0AIf i= t were not for X.Org, that has become very=0Adifficult to configure, I'd su= rely recommend FreeBSD=0Ato everyone: instead now I recommend PC-BSD.=0A=0A= cheers,=0A=0APedro.=0A=0AOn Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:42:50 +0200, johan Hendriks= wrote:=0A=0A>Hello all=0A=0A>First of all this is not a rant, just a write= down of my feel about FreeBSD.=0A>Secondly i want to thank all of the peop= le involved in FreeBSD for this =0A>fantastic OS that i use on a daily basi= s for most tasks like Mail =0A>filtering, proxy/web services and file shari= ng.=0A=0A>Here i go.=0A>In the time of FreeBSD 4.x, i would without hesitat= ing recommend FreeBSD =0A>for almost=A0 everything on the server side.=0A= =0A>You know you could take FreeBSD 4.x and start throwing rocks at it no = =0A>matter how big the rocks where, and the FreeBSD people would probably = =0A>stand in front of the crowd with the biggest rocks.=0A=0A>But with the = latest like 6, 7 and the 8 releases i have my doubts! I =0A>would still be = throwing rocks, but i will not stand in front, and would =0A>be more picky = about the rocks i pick to throw.=0A=0A>I have no data to prove this, it is = just a feeling.=0A>FreeBSD does not have the same robuust feel like it had = in the 4.x days.=0A=0A>Is this because FreeBSD does not get ironed out anym= ore like the 4.x =0A>release?=0A>We stop at x.3 or x.4 as where the 4.x rel= ease did go to .11 , and it =0A>proved to be a succes.=0A=0A>Also is FreeBS= D not to conservative in its settings?=0A=0A>For example if there is a perf= ormance battle between linux, opensolaris =0A>or whatever=A0 and FreeBSD an= d FreeBSD lacks in performance, there is =0A>always the statement that you = need to tune FreeBSD!=0A>Why?=0A=0A>Could we not set defaults to more stand= ard values that modern hardware =0A>uses.=0A>This has been asked several ti= mes before if i memeber correctly, and the =0A>answer is mostly that there = are still some users that have old hardware.=0A>Well is it not time to let = them tune the system down.=0A>Maybe an installer option, like GENERIC kerne= l and T_GENERIC kernel for =0A>Tuned Kernel, with has some settings that is= always a good thing to have =0A>on your modern hardware.=0A>And with it co= mes a more suitable /etc/sysctl.conf file or default =0A>sysctl values that= fits latest hardware better.=0A>This way if you have old hardware, you can= select your good old known =0A>FreeBSD.=0A>If you are on modern hardware y= ou can select the tuned version.=0A=0A>Samba performance is in my opinion n= ot good at FreeBSD.=0A>Windows and Linux get higher performance without any= tuning.=0A>But i do not want to start using a mix of operating systems.=0A= >Linux for Samba, FreeBSD fo web/mail filtering and Windows for exchange = =0A>and so on.=0A=0A>I know you can not suspect to be a high performance we= bserver and a =0A>samba server with the same tunings, but there must be a w= ay to find a =0A>good balance.=0A>So if you install FreeBSD, Linux and Wind= ows there are some differences, =0A>but not that huge as there are now.=0A= =0A>In my opinion we now starting to enter the storage era.=0A>FreeBSD with= ZFS could play a major role in this.=0A>But here i get a little reluctent = to use FreeBSD.=0A>If i read the maillings lists and some performance and t= rouble issues =0A>people have with ZFS, i starting to get doubts.=0A>I also= know that succes stories are not on these lists, and only the bad =0A>thin= gs are.=0A=0A>I work for a small company with three people.=0A>We do not ha= ve budgets to buy SAN and or NAS machines and do endless =0A>testing.=0A=0A= >Vmware is getting bigger and bigger, even for the smaller company's we =0A= >work for.=0A>So again FreeBSD and ZFS could really be a good solution for = a SAN/NAS. =0A>But we can not have kernel panics on the SAN/NAS!=0A>But her= e again reluctend to do so.=0A=0A>Maybe it is because the problems on the m= ailling list, or the whole feel =0A>of it, i do not know.=0A=0A>Now we need= to make a choice.=0A=0A>HP SANS or FreeBSD with ZFS for the SAN.=0A=0A=0A>= Again not a rant, just my writing down the feeling i have with FreeBSD =0A>= right now.=0A>And again thanks to all for making FreeBSD to what it is toda= y.=0A>A wonderful clean sytem that still does the job for me.=0A=0A>regards= =0A>Johan Hendriks=0A=0A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1315784569.65036.YahooMailClassic>