Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy <kip@lyris.com> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Joao Carlos <jcarlos@bahianet.com.br>, hitech@bahianet.com.br, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Out of mbuf clusters Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.9909201407370.25063-100000@luna> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909201353360.5712-100000@dt014nb6.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As I wrote in a later post which was posted only to a subset of the original: I stand corrected. On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Doug wrote: > [Re-directed to -chat since none of the 3(!) lists were appropriate] > > On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Kip Macy wrote: > > > Here is where your philosophy diverges from many others -- I and I believe > > many others think that a server operating system should at least be robust > > out of the box. > > You have a fundamental flaw in your logic here, and in most of the > other sentences in this post. Namely, you fail to adequately define the > problem domain that you're proposing freebsd as a solution for. More > precisely, a server OS should be robust _for what application_ out of the > box? > > > Neither Linux nor Solaris is vulnerable to running out of > > mbufs as a result of malicious code. I don't think FreeBSD should be > > either. > > So, how many mbuf clusters should freebsd assign in a default > configuration, and how will you justify the massive amount of ram (massive > relative to other kernel structures) that they will consume? Before you > answer, keep in mind that I can direct an attack against your box that > will easily consume more than 15,000 mbuf's without even breathing hard. > (BTW, you're also wrong about linux and solaris not being vulnerable to > high server load problems out of the box.) > > > This is in no way a rant against FreeBSD, but rather a rant against the > > attitude that one needs to know about OS internals to run a lightweight > > server. > > As someone else already pointed out, you don't need to know the OS > internals to run a lightweight server. You DO need to know them to run a > heavyweight server, or in the case of the original poster to run a clone > flooding script designed to take down a heavyweight server. You cannot > define a default configuration that will be perfect for every use. It's > simply not possible. > > > If all of core insisted that Joe User had to know about internals > > to use FreeBSD as a server, FreeBSD would be little more than a hobbyist > > OS, > > But -core has stated explicitly that freebsd IS a hobbyist OS. I > believe Jordan's exact words were that, "FreeBSD is a vanity OS by and for > the developers." The fact that it's also useful for doing productive > things is purely an accident, resulting from the fact that the hobbyists > involved like to spend their time doing productive things. > > > rather than what it is -- the best OS currently available. > > Once again, this whole thesis is just plain silly. FreeBSD is not > the best OS available for every possible application. It happens to be a > really good OS for a lot of things, in fact I ran what was at the time the > largest IRC server in the world on a freebsd machine. However my success > came from long hours of learning about how the OS works, combined with a > lot of help from knowledgeable people. A lot of what we learned is in the > base system now, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't set any > records for high performance servers "out of the box." > > Doug > -- > "My mama told me, my mama said, 'don't cry.' She said, 'you're too young a man > to have as many women you got.' I looked at my mother dear and didn't even > crack a smile. I said, 'If women kill me, I don't mind dyin!'" > > - John Belushi as "Joliet" Jake Blues, "I Don't Know" > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.4.05.9909201407370.25063-100000>