Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x?
The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to believe you're not really trying to solve any problems. D On 10/12/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- Derrick T. Woolworth, President ServeTheWeb, LLC. http://www.ServeTheWeb.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
