From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 19 12:49:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73A11065679 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:49:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sfourman@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B03A8FC0C for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj7 with SMTP id 7so33273pwj.13 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:49:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EUSFigr0vTu6bPqz4jB2/LGWtPiD4e0mZppx/tVAlfU=; b=AwkuC9U/LImFtD2c6qgUMJ3/sTN+qYkwMdv5KmyiqDXLI2Alq6NDQJQNXkLuYGmKPq VOXE28RNkq3glgZ9jG5FDCK3bBonQZU9FIlMMGH1R1wmIpnH6BeFUZgvmEO/GGWsqr54 8F6oF9ZgbLAQc+xKdDT0QzPMgZPW4BMufjX0Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=q4hcZ9iW+laNV+sOioIAX39qXVcSQuHU8x/OjHB935nPzMPpfjZ4uVOpsIbfwSEVCH ct0ppYYgb/TpVG6tegI4268nokTUjlSdM7uUCJUXvHD3kw1rVWo4YBx0zd10Uq+KkaoH RziKDtnDsy5Kb1muq6KlJPNa9bMSFJSJEyTow= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.21.36 with SMTP id y36mr4667154wfi.160.1266583748854; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:49:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B7DBFA3.7010101@markshroyer.com> References: <87vdduespd.fsf@kobe.laptop> <242758.48200.qm@web111302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B7DBFA3.7010101@markshroyer.com> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:49:08 -0600 Message-ID: <11167f521002190449me93b462pa432699c4d3a661f@mail.gmail.com> From: "Sam Fourman Jr." To: Mark Shroyer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NetBSD 5.0 looks cool X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:49:09 -0000 On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Mark Shroyer wrote: > On 2/18/2010 10:32 AM, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: >> How about these bench vs FreeBSD?! >> >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img11.html >> >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img13.html >> >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img15.html > > If those numbers are characteristic of the operating system's overall > performance, then that's a really impressive leap forward for NetBSD. > > That said, I use FreeBSD mainly on small, individual servers; as we all > know, there's a lot more that goes into selecting a server OS than raw > performance numbers. =A0Stability, security features (like the ability to > run Apache jailed with whatever random, potentially insecure CGI or PHP > applications one must install), and ease of software installation and > maintenance are important too, and for me FreeBSD excels at these things. > > But between these massive performance improvements, and its mature Xen > compatibility, and the fact that they evicted Sendmail from the base > system in favor of Postfix, NetBSD really has my attention. =A0(In fact > I'm setting up a VM right now so I can get a feel for how NetBSD + > pkgsrc handles as a server.) =A0Now if only it had jails... Mature xen dom0 support is a REALLY BIG plus for me, I wish FreeBSD had Xen Dom0 support :/ I also wish that NetBSD had mature ZFS support (or at least working snapsho= ts). I have taken a look at NetBSD 5 and I have to say it isn't too bad, I was surprised. Sam Fourman Jr. Fourman Networks