No one said freebsd 6.0 is useless, but I promise you that 4.x could do any "router" job better than 6.0. And everyone on the FreeBSD team knows it. The point is not the freebsd 5+ can't do a job; its that it doesn't do a job better than 4.x.
DT --- "Derrick T. Woolworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What a load... > > Here's a report... > > I have over 800 nodes installed in the field > with FreeBSD 6.0 running > as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with > 256MB of RAM. They > run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, > dual-firewall with custom NetGraph > module for Wireless MAC authentication. The > company does over 180k a > month in subscribers in the trucking industry > in the US. > > The company has TWO network administrators who > do very little during > the day because the machines NEVER die. If > they do, 99.9% of the time > its hardware related. > > I built those systems in 2 months and they > support remote rollout of a > new operating system snapshot and they're > preparing to rollout 7.0 > when its stable. I no longer work there - only > on occassion when they > need assistance. > > Internally, I have 50 FreeBSD machines hosting > over 600 complex web > applications that my firm has built over the > last 11 years using ONLY > FreeBSD. Currently, they're all running > FreeBSD 6.0 and later and "I" > am the only network administrator in the > company. If I was running > anything else (which, we do run some Windows > machines and they are the > bain of my existence...) I would be too busy to > do anything else. > > One of our largest systems has redundant > load-balancers with three > presentation boxes serving web pages out of > memory - again, Apache > w/PHP. These boxes build 200+ page 300dpi PDF > documents for high > school year books (including LOTS of 300+ dpi > student and faculty > images). They're supported by two mid-sized > database machines, one > read, one write (replicated, obviously) that do > 200 to 500 queries per > second at busy times during the day. Graphic > data is all stored on > SATA data storage systems, which after a bit of > tweaking scale really > well using NFS and Jumbo Frames - bound > multiple NICs with the ng_fec > module (thank you thank you guys)... > > Oh yeah, forgot to mention, once the system was > setup, I haven't had > to touch it - and even "braver" yet, these 2 > load balancers, 3 > presentation machines, 2 database machines and > 2 1.4TB data storage > boxes ALL run 7.0-CURRENT. Call me stupid, > brave, whatever - but 7.0 > , with the snapshot release I got is the > fastest I have ever seen > FreeBSD run, regardless of the fact the > hardware is fast. I've tuned > each machine using the online docs and a bit of > help from PHK and Juli > Malette... > > Interesting stat - from 10 other machines, I > used ab to toss some hits > at these boxes. Like: > > ab -n 1000 -c 20 <url> > > The page hit was a test page that did reading > and writing, several > times to the database and read an image, used > MagickWand to resample > them and write the image back. > > The average time for the test took 4 to 5 > seconds. I achieved around > ~220 requests per second per test machine with > 75 to 100ms per > request. > > I don't want to feed the trolls either, but > sometimes performance is > achieved because you take the time to read and > don't just install the > OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all > hardware. When > configured properly, in my opinion, FreeBSD > kicks ass. > > D > > On 10/12/06, Eric Anderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from > Thu, 12 > > >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > >> > > >> [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still > not > > >> competitive replacement for > > >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old > unsupported > > >> hardware - I speaked about > > >>> performance in some situation and believe > in > > >> it's stability. > > >> > > >> You can't be sure that a committer has the > > >> resources to setup an > > >> environment where he is able to reproduce > your > > >> performance problems. > > >> You on the other hand have hands-on > experience > > >> with the performance > > >> problem. If you are able to setup a > -current > > >> system (because there are > > >> changes which may affect performance > already, > > >> and it is the place > > >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) > which > > >> exposes the bad behavior, > > >> you could make yourself familiar with the > pmc > > >> framework > > >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm > sure > > >> jkoshy@ will help if you > > >> have questions) and point out the > bottlenecks > > >> on current@ and/or > > >> performance@ (something similar happened > for > > >> MySQL, and now we have a > > >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without > such > > >> reports, we can't handle > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> Further discussion about this should > happen in > > >> performance@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> Bye, > > >> Alexander. > > >> > > > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD > team > > > to come out of its world of delusion and > come to > > > terms with what every real-life user of > FreeBSD > > > knows: In how ever many years of > development, > > > there is still no good reason to use > anything > > > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x > doesn't > > > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > > > performance advantage in real world > applications > > > with multiple processors, and the > performance is > > > far worse with 1 processor. > > > > > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA > support > > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support > both. > > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor > system and > > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away > from > > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms > with === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
