On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brad Tilley <b...@16systems.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Ouellet <dan...@presscom.net> wrote: > >> So, what's heavy for you may be just simple routine for others and no, I do >> not miss the fine lock either yet anyway. Would be nice, but really, I >> haven't run into it's need for me anyway yet. > > That's true for me as well. We use OpenBSD on some rather busy network > links doing Snort, among other things, and I don't think we've used > even a quarter of its potential. I've never actually seen OpenBSD fail > (with regard to performance) in real-world settings. The OP should > test it out... he'll be pleasantly surprised. > > Brad
Soo... Your performance requirements may met by OpenBSD despite it's current poor SMP support - other OSes will scale on SMP. Trade-offs, trade-offs... It's a psychological issue. We have all this multicore hardware that doesn't get taken advantage of by this OS, and it's always in the backs of our minds, but the security and simplicity trade-offs may be worth it anyway, so screw the hardware.
