Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:34:17 +0200 From: Yury Tarasievich <grog@grsu.by> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD firewall for high profile hosts - waste of time ? Message-ID: <3E299E29.4030205@grsu.by> References: <20030116124254.J9642-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> <3E2739D1.5402B7A6@mindspring.com> <3E282DE5.4090209@grsu.by> <3E289146.1EBBB3B8@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: >Yury Tarasievich wrote: > > [...info and pointers greatly appreciated...] Now: >Most of the reasons this stuff is not in FreeBSD is NIH (not >being the pet research project of a committer), license, the >need to "productize" the code from research, etc.. > >For the complaints about scalability... Linux has a project that >they are very proud of, in order to obtain 10,000 simultaneous >TCP connections. With respect, I personally achieved 1,600,000 >simultaneous TCP connections on a modified FreeBSD box with 4G >of RAM. During this process, I found a credentials reference >count overflow bug (since fixed in FreeBSD), which occurred on >close, after opening more than 32,763 connections in one process. >No one else reported this bug, so I have to assume that no one >else ever ran FreeBSD up to that number of connections, before. > >So... the primary reason is that no one is using FreeBSD under >the loads necessary to cause the problems to exhibit themselves. >You have to have a need in order to be interested in a way of >satifying a need. 8-). > > I wasn't explicit with my question, although with your explanations my question(s) seems rather rhetoric -- but I'd like to know your opinion: - what is the *real* *reason* for stuff that good not going into FreeBSD? and - doesn't all that mean that the supposed "plentiness of choice" turn out to be rather its opposite? has one not belonging to the "inner circle" *any* chance of influencing things course? >>You were also saying in same post that: >> >>>The fixes are mostly >>>simple, but for whatever reason, they never make it into FreeBSD >>>proper (my theory is that the developement focus is heavily skewed >>>to general purpose processing, rather than network processing). >>> >>> >>And throttling the "FlagFeature"??? >> >> > >That sort of thing has to be there, for FreeBSD to be interesting >as a reasearch OS, so that additional work occurs on the platform; >that's pretty much a given. You wouldn't have someone as well-known >as Sam Leffler donating code, if that code was unlikely to get in, >since it would be a waste of his time and effort (the same reason >some people have left the project, actually). > > That I didn't understand. People left because they couldn't get their code in or because they couldn't stop code of well-known persons getting in? >So even if you don't like "feature creep" or "bloat", when it impacts >top end performance, top end performance really doesn't matter to most >people who are doing the coding (i.e. how many OC3's do you have to >your computer? How many would you need to have to saturate even a >single gigabit ethernet?). > > I wasn't precise in wording. Possibly, one cannot even see the real impact of worsening of network processing. I just do not see the good reason for *actually* making network processing capability -- the most praised feature of free *nixes -- worse, not better. And I think it's bad press, too. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E299E29.4030205>