RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc
>G. Fournier
>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:24 AM
>To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>
>
>
>... and is there anything we can do as a community to prevent it?
>
>I've been a FreeBSD users since '94, and proud of it ... and have
>vehemently defended, all the way, my decision to use it vs 'the
>dark side'
>...
>
>Although my above subject is a more "general call", my big beef
>right now
>is with RAID controller vendors, but I don't believe that the
>problem is
>specific to them, so hopefully others will ring in ...
>

It IS specific to them for a couple reasons, let me outline:

1) RAID is being taken over by SATA raid chipsets.  Everyone
knows it, and no RAID chip makers are putting money into
development and support of anything other than SATA chip
raid controllers.  That is, their SCSI and UDMA products
they are just milking right now.

2) The motherboard chipset manufacturers - like Intel - are
integrating SATA RAID functionality into their motherboard
sets.  So companies like Promise see all their low-end
business going into the toilet and they are once again, just
milking it.

3) Price of disks is making everyone chuck out RAID-5   The
thing to do today is get cheapo 500GB SATA drives and mirror
them if you want redundancy.  Instead of striping together 3
or 4 250GB or 200GB disks, just get one or two big ones if you
don't care about redundancy.

4) FreeBSD needs to quit changing around the disk driver
architecture.  It's completely fucking rediculous.  We lost a lot
of good drivers due to the shift to CAM and then as soon as
we got some of the popular ones back, they broke everything
from the 4 to 5 transistion.  Now they are doing it again from
5 to 6.  Manufacturers like Intel put in their time, they wrote
stuff like your storcon, and saw the FreeBSD community say
"thanks, but we are going to make you rewrite it again since
one of our developers got a hair up his ass to change everything
around again"  The vendors are getting sick of it.

5) The low-end RAID chipsets are getting absorbed into the
ata driver as fast as Soren can write support for them.  There's
no incentive for the manufacturer to write a FreeBSD driver once
we reverse engineer what they are doing and stick support in
for it.

>
>I just read a recent thread about monitoring RAID controllers on one of
>hte lists (this one?) where someone mentioned that Adaptec's Official
>stand is that they don't support storage management under
>FreeBSD ... but,
>in ports, we have the older aaccli interface, which I
>understand doesn't
>work with newer controllers ...
>
>So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else:
>
>   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
>

Simple.  If you want to run RAID-5 then purchase the HiPoint card or
the 3ware card, both of them come with manufacturer-written drivers.
3ware is really great, they have a developer with committ rights and
they just stick their driver right into the FreeBSD source repository.

If you want to run RAID 0 or 1, then buy a motherboard with a
SATA raid chipset that is supported in FreeBSD's driver.

>Its not enough anymore to know a piece of hardware *works* with
>FreeBSD,
>but more that the vendor is willing to acknowledge us as a market ...
>petitions don't do anything, IMHO ... it all falls to 'money talks' for
>most vendors (not all of them, but alot of them) ...
>
>Is there anything we can do?
>

Yes, reward the vendors like HiPoint and 3ware by purchasing
their product, punish the vendors like Promise that force us to
reverse engineer their product to write a driver for it by not buying
their product.

Red

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 6/21/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc
>G. Fournier
>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:24 AM
>To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>


[deleted]


>
>   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
>

Simple.  If you want to run RAID-5 then purchase the HiPoint card or
the 3ware card, both of them come with manufacturer-written drivers.
3ware is really great, they have a developer with committ rights and
they just stick their driver right into the FreeBSD source repository.



s/HiPoint/HighPoint/ a.k.a HighPoint Technologies, Inc. or simply HPT.

I have two HighPoint controllers and like them both:
FreeBSD 6.1/i386 + HPT2220 + 8x250GB.
FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/amd64 + HPT1820A + 8x300GB.

Areca also supports FreeBSD:
$ man arcmsr (FreeBSD 5.4+)
http://www.areca.com.tw

My next controller will probably be from Areca because they support
RAID level 6 and have multi-lane connectors... maybe ARC-1130ML +
12x500GB. Does anyone know what SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) RAID
controllers are supported by FreeBSD?, they can use SATA drives
correct?



--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 21, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:


Areca also supports FreeBSD:
$ man arcmsr (FreeBSD 5.4+)
http://www.areca.com.tw


I have some though they are not in service yet.  Right now destined  
for some Solaris boxes when Areca can fix a bad interaction between  
my Tyan opteron board and their Solaris driver...


I bought Areca for three reasons :  They support Solaris 10 AND  
FreeBSD so I can re-deploy HW as needed under both OS (that is two  
reasons) and they got good reviews (#3).




My next controller will probably be from Areca because they support
RAID level 6 and have multi-lane connectors... maybe ARC-1130ML +
12x500GB. Does anyone know what SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) RAID
controllers are supported by FreeBSD?, they can use SATA drives
correct?


Areca is supposed to have some new SAS cards though I don't know if  
they are out yet.


Chad


---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 6/21/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:

> On 6/21/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >-Original Message-
>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc
>> >G. Fournier
>> >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:24 AM
>> >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>> >Subject: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>> >
>
> [deleted]
>
>> >
>> >   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
>> >
>>
>> Simple.  If you want to run RAID-5 then purchase the HiPoint card or
>> the 3ware card, both of them come with manufacturer-written drivers.
>> 3ware is really great, they have a developer with committ rights and
>> they just stick their driver right into the FreeBSD source repository.
>>
>
> s/HiPoint/HighPoint/ a.k.a HighPoint Technologies, Inc. or simply HPT.
>
> I have two HighPoint controllers and like them both:
> FreeBSD 6.1/i386 + HPT2220 + 8x250GB.
> FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/amd64 + HPT1820A + 8x300GB.
>
> Areca also supports FreeBSD:
> $ man arcmsr (FreeBSD 5.4+)
> http://www.areca.com.tw
>
> My next controller will probably be from Areca because they support
> RAID level 6 and have multi-lane connectors... maybe ARC-1130ML +
> 12x500GB. Does anyone know what SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) RAID
> controllers are supported by FreeBSD?, they can use SATA drives
> correct?

SAS is what I'm using in our HP servers ... don't know about SATA drives,
since the SAS drives are closer to a 'laptop size' then full size drive
... the HP controller is supported by the CISS driver, and is, by far,
IMHO, the best driver we have, since you don't need any 'external
utilities' to check the status of the RAID controller ... wish they all
provided that :(



HighPoint and Areca both have native FreeBSD array management
utilities and 12port, and up, Areca controllers have a built-in
Ethernet port with an embedded http/smtp/snmp/telnet server running on
them.

Oh and SAS controllers can support SATA drives, from Adaptec's website:

"The SAS connector is a universal interconnection that is form-factor
compatible with SATA, allowing SAS or SATA drives to plug directly
into a SAS environment whether for mission critical applications with
high availability and high performance requirements or lower
cost-per-gigabyte applications such as near-box storage.

SATA connector signals are a subset of SAS signals, enabling the
compatibility of SATA devices and SAS controllers. SAS drives will not
operate on a SATA controller and are keyed to prevent any chance of
plugging them in incorrectly.

In addition, the similar SAS and SATA physical interfaces enable a new
universal SAS backplane that provides connectivity to both SAS drives
and SATA drives, eliminating the need for separate SCSI and ATA drive
backplanes. This consolidation of designs greatly benefits both
backplane manufacturers and end-users by reducing inventory and design
costs."

-- 
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/sata/_education/SAS_SATA_unprlcompat.htm



--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:



b. are ppl actually using/promoting SATA drives in a server  
environment?
   Or are we just talking about situations where you have a large  
number
   of spindles to work with?  My one experience with an SATA  
configuration

   is that the server doesn't *feel* like its performing as well as my
   SCSI servers do ... under load ...


That  may have as much to do as the controller and driver as the  
drive type.


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:


On 6/21/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc
>G. Fournier
>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:24 AM
>To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>


[deleted]


>
>   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
>

Simple.  If you want to run RAID-5 then purchase the HiPoint card or
the 3ware card, both of them come with manufacturer-written drivers.
3ware is really great, they have a developer with committ rights and
they just stick their driver right into the FreeBSD source repository.



s/HiPoint/HighPoint/ a.k.a HighPoint Technologies, Inc. or simply HPT.

I have two HighPoint controllers and like them both:
FreeBSD 6.1/i386 + HPT2220 + 8x250GB.
FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/amd64 + HPT1820A + 8x300GB.

Areca also supports FreeBSD:
$ man arcmsr (FreeBSD 5.4+)
http://www.areca.com.tw

My next controller will probably be from Areca because they support
RAID level 6 and have multi-lane connectors... maybe ARC-1130ML +
12x500GB. Does anyone know what SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) RAID
controllers are supported by FreeBSD?, they can use SATA drives
correct?


SAS is what I'm using in our HP servers ... don't know about SATA drives, 
since the SAS drives are closer to a 'laptop size' then full size drive 
... the HP controller is supported by the CISS driver, and is, by far, 
IMHO, the best driver we have, since you don't need any 'external 
utilities' to check the status of the RAID controller ... wish they all 
provided that :(



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:


On 6/21/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:

> On 6/21/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >-Original Message-
>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc
>> >G. Fournier
>> >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:24 AM
>> >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>> >Subject: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>> >
>
> [deleted]
>
>> >
>> >   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
>> >
>>
>> Simple.  If you want to run RAID-5 then purchase the HiPoint card or
>> the 3ware card, both of them come with manufacturer-written drivers.
>> 3ware is really great, they have a developer with committ rights and
>> they just stick their driver right into the FreeBSD source repository.
>>
>
> s/HiPoint/HighPoint/ a.k.a HighPoint Technologies, Inc. or simply HPT.
>
> I have two HighPoint controllers and like them both:
> FreeBSD 6.1/i386 + HPT2220 + 8x250GB.
> FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/amd64 + HPT1820A + 8x300GB.
>
> Areca also supports FreeBSD:
> $ man arcmsr (FreeBSD 5.4+)
> http://www.areca.com.tw
>
> My next controller will probably be from Areca because they support
> RAID level 6 and have multi-lane connectors... maybe ARC-1130ML +
> 12x500GB. Does anyone know what SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) RAID
> controllers are supported by FreeBSD?, they can use SATA drives
> correct?

SAS is what I'm using in our HP servers ... don't know about SATA drives,
since the SAS drives are closer to a 'laptop size' then full size drive
... the HP controller is supported by the CISS driver, and is, by far,
IMHO, the best driver we have, since you don't need any 'external
utilities' to check the status of the RAID controller ... wish they all
provided that :(



HighPoint and Areca both have native FreeBSD array management
utilities and 12port, and up, Areca controllers have a built-in
Ethernet port with an embedded http/smtp/snmp/telnet server running on
them.

Oh and SAS controllers can support SATA drives, from Adaptec's website:

"The SAS connector is a universal interconnection that is form-factor
compatible with SATA, allowing SAS or SATA drives to plug directly
into a SAS environment whether for mission critical applications with
high availability and high performance requirements or lower
cost-per-gigabyte applications such as near-box storage.

SATA connector signals are a subset of SAS signals, enabling the
compatibility of SATA devices and SAS controllers. SAS drives will not
operate on a SATA controller and are keyed to prevent any chance of
plugging them in incorrectly.

In addition, the similar SAS and SATA physical interfaces enable a new
universal SAS backplane that provides connectivity to both SAS drives
and SATA drives, eliminating the need for separate SCSI and ATA drive
backplanes. This consolidation of designs greatly benefits both
backplane manufacturers and end-users by reducing inventory and design
costs."

--
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/sata/_education/SAS_SATA_unprlcompat.htm


a. HPs SAS drives don't have the same form-factor as the SATA drives, or,
   at least, not the SATA drives I've had experience with, so although the
   interface may work with either, the rack mount servers don't have that
   option ... my love of the SAS drives is 4 drives per 1U rack, which
   means I can do RAID1+0 instead of RAID5 on SCSI/SATA racks ...

b. are ppl actually using/promoting SATA drives in a server environment?
   Or are we just talking about situations where you have a large number
   of spindles to work with?  My one experience with an SATA configuration
   is that the server doesn't *feel* like its performing as well as my
   SCSI servers do ... under load ...


Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Atom Powers]

On 6/21/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

b. are ppl actually using/promoting SATA drives in a server environment?
Or are we just talking about situations where you have a large number
of spindles to work with?  My one experience with an SATA configuration
is that the server doesn't *feel* like its performing as well as my
SCSI servers do ... under load ...


Yes. All the servers I'm installing this year will have SATA drives
(and 3ware RAID controllers). The Western Digital Raptor drives are
every bit as good as the SCSI drives I used to get.

Although it can be difficult to explain to the finance people why a
74GB drive is better than a 500GB drive at the same price.

--
--
Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard.
--Atom Powers--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Tamouh H.]

 
ware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
> 
> On 6/21/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > b. are ppl actually using/promoting SATA drives in a server 
> environment?
> > Or are we just talking about situations where you have 
> a large number
> > of spindles to work with?  My one experience with an 
> SATA configuration
> > is that the server doesn't *feel* like its performing 
> as well as my
> > SCSI servers do ... under load ...
> 
> Yes. All the servers I'm installing this year will have SATA 
> drives (and 3ware RAID controllers). The Western Digital 
> Raptor drives are every bit as good as the SCSI drives I used to get.
> 
> Although it can be difficult to explain to the finance people 
> why a 74GB drive is better than a 500GB drive at the same price.
> 

I know there have been a lot of mentioning of 3Ware and SCSI. But I went on 
3WARE website and there is not a single SCSI Adapter RAID or else!

In that case, the only real players left for SCSI are Adaptec and LSI (aside 
from HP controllers). Adaptec is out of question for FreeBSD due to its 
performance, so really only LSI left!

It seems SATA is the way to go on small to medium sized servers.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Tamouh H. wrote:

I know there have been a lot of mentioning of 3Ware and SCSI. But I went 
on 3WARE website and there is not a single SCSI Adapter RAID or else!


In that case, the only real players left for SCSI are Adaptec and LSI 
(aside from HP controllers). Adaptec is out of question for FreeBSD due 
to its performance, so really only LSI left!


In our case, where we are dealing with co-located servers, we've finally 
settled on HP Proliant servers ... not only do I like the SAS drives (4 in 
a 1U rack so that I can use RAID1+0), but iLO is 's 
gift to remote administration, and the HP RAID controllers actually 
provide FreeBSD with usual status information without requiring some 
external utility ...


Cost is a bit more, but when your servers are several countries south of 
you, and you hate disturbing the techs down there if you don't have to, 
the ability to see the BIOS (motherboard and RAID controller), as well as 
everything happening on the console ... and being able to reboot ... I'll 
pay the extra ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 22, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

 not only do I like the SAS drives (4 in a 1U rack so that I can  
use RAID1+0)


What drives are they?  There is nothing in the SAS spec about drive  
dimensions so it seems you like your particular models of SAS drives


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:



On Jun 22, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

not only do I like the SAS drives (4 in a 1U rack so that I can use 
RAID1+0)


What drives are they?  There is nothing in the SAS spec about drive 
dimensions so it seems you like your particular models of SAS drives


Ack, I thought it was a standard size thing, never even thought about it 
... I ordered the drives from HP, with the server ...


From:

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/drives-enclosures/index.html?jumpid=ex_hphqglobal_wwentsem/Proliant

I'm guessing what I got were the 2.5" form factor, vs the 3.5" ... and 
based on that same page, looks like I can get 2.5" SATA also ... i thought 
the 'small size' was a SAS feature :(



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 6/22/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:

>
> On Jun 22, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> not only do I like the SAS drives (4 in a 1U rack so that I can use
>> RAID1+0)
>
> What drives are they?  There is nothing in the SAS spec about drive
> dimensions so it seems you like your particular models of SAS drives

Ack, I thought it was a standard size thing, never even thought about it
... I ordered the drives from HP, with the server ...

From:

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/drives-enclosures/index.html?jumpid=ex_hphqglobal_wwentsem/Proliant

I'm guessing what I got were the 2.5" form factor, vs the 3.5" ... and
based on that same page, looks like I can get 2.5" SATA also ... i thought
the 'small size' was a SAS feature :(



The 74GB 2.5" SAS drives are $700 each, $9.50 per gigabyte! The array
I just finished building was 2400GB, If I'd used your drives the
drives alone would have cost $23,000... holy shit man.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822116156



--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Marc G. Fournier writes:


So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else:
   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?


How about buying from vendors that specifically support FreeBSD.
http://freebsdsystems.com
http://ixsystems.com

and surely others. 
___

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Marc G. Fournier writes:


b. are ppl actually using/promoting SATA drives in a server environment?


I think for a small company there is little choice if you need serious 
capacity on a budget.


300GB SATA.. in the $150 and lower
300GB 10K RPM SCSI $650 and up

$500 difference per drive.
2U with 8 drives: 4,000 Difference.

Not to mention you can get 750GB SATA drives cheaper than 300GB SCSI.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Marc G. Fournier writes:


settled on HP Proliant servers .


The problem with HP, as I see it,  is that they "officially" do not support 
freebsd.. I even sent an email to ask.. and the categorically stated that it 
is not supported.


I would not want to standarize on something which is not guaranted will 
work in the future with FreeBSD.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

How much more official can this get:

http://www.testdrive.hp.com/os/#bsd

How can a company officially support an operating system that does not
have a development organization that will guarentee a response on a
problem?  Doing so would be tanasmount to assuming FreeBSD development,
all that would happen is that anyone that has any problem with FreeBSD
could simply buy a HP server then whammo - instant free FreeBSD
custom programming.

Notice that while HP lists support for Linux, the fine print does not
support ALL Linux distributions.

You have no guarentee that any piece of hardware you buy will be
supported on any future revision of FreeBSD, or even Windows
for that matter.  I have lots of Intel gear in my basement that was
supported on various Windows versions in the past, which cannot
run today's Windows.  Your being unrealistic.

Ted

- Original Message - 
From: "Francisco Reyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > settled on HP Proliant servers .
>
> The problem with HP, as I see it,  is that they "officially" do not
support
> freebsd.. I even sent an email to ask.. and the categorically stated that
it
> is not supported.
>
> I would not want to standarize on something which is not guaranted will
> work in the future with FreeBSD.
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Atom Powers writes:


Yes. All the servers I'm installing this year will have SATA drives
(and 3ware RAID controllers). The Western Digital Raptor drives are
every bit as good as the SCSI drives I used to get.


Perhaps as the ones you used to get, but not as good as you can get.

Dont get me wrong.. I can get approval to go SCSI since our machines need at 
least 1T+ (the storage machines), but looking at the benchmarks at 
storagereview (http://storagereview.com) shows there is still a significant 
performance difference between SCSI and SATA. 
___

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 6/28/06, Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Atom Powers writes:

> Yes. All the servers I'm installing this year will have SATA drives
> (and 3ware RAID controllers). The Western Digital Raptor drives are
> every bit as good as the SCSI drives I used to get.

Perhaps as the ones you used to get, but not as good as you can get.

Dont get me wrong.. I can get approval to go SCSI since our
machines need at least 1T+ (the storage machines)


Why? 1TB and up is a SATA niche. You can buy 3 SATA arrays for the
price of 1 SCSI array Also... gigabit Ethernet is only 125MB/s
(Max) and and a single SATA drive can easily transfer at 50MB/s*. Your
limiting factor is probably going to be your bus with arrays/GigE so
SCSI is pointless unless you can take advantage of SCSI's TCQ with
high random access I/O loads, If you shift your work loads around you
can probably get around this. SATA is so cheap and good enough that we
will do whatever it takes to make it work... SCSI is already dead in
the entry level server market.

*I just tested this with two Maxtor SATA drives the other day:
dd if=/dev/disk1 of=/dev/disk2 bs=4m. It dropped off to about 30MB/s
at the end but my average read/write was just over 50MB/s.


--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:


settled on HP Proliant servers .


The problem with HP, as I see it,  is that they "officially" do not support 
freebsd.. I even sent an email to ask.. and the categorically stated that it 
is not supported.


I would not want to standarize on something which is not guaranted will work 
in the future with FreeBSD.


the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support 
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
dropping support for it as well ...


Intel as an example, you can get storcon to manage the RAID controllers 
for both FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x, but they've not done similar for 6.x, which 
means I'm now "blind" on my RAIDs ...


With HP, at least, the ciss driver is smart enough to provide me with 
health info on my RAID controller, and I have the ability to manage 
everything remotely through iLO ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:


So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else:
   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?


How about buying from vendors that specifically support FreeBSD.
http://freebsdsystems.com
http://ixsystems.com

and surely others.


In my case, it comes down to two words: remote administration ... HP is 
the only system I've yet found that has it integrated as part of the 
hardware ...


The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5" SAS drives ... our new 
servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0 
...


Other point is leasability ... from an accounting perspective, its better 
for me to lease servers, then it is to buy them outright ... being in 
Canada, its very difficult to lease servers from the US ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Alex Zbyslaw]

Marc G. Fournier wrote:


On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:


So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else:
   What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?



How about buying from vendors that specifically support FreeBSD.
http://freebsdsystems.com
http://ixsystems.com

and surely others.



In my case, it comes down to two words: remote administration ... HP 
is the only system I've yet found that has it integrated as part of 
the hardware ...


Well, Dell do have a DRAC which at least allows remote console 
independent of OS - also remote CD/floppy so you can install BSD from 
300 miles away (as long as you have a windows(!) machine with a 
CD/floppy locally).


Of course, their "OpenManage" software isn't, it's closed and only works 
on Linux/Windows.


--Alex


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be  
dropping support for it as well ...


Many places are starting support for FreeBSD, or increased support,  
as well -- Areca RAID, HPT RAID cards, more LSI cards with better  
monitoring (it appears -- maybe it was always there and I did not  
notice it)


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:



On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be dropping 
support for it as well ...


Many places are starting support for FreeBSD, or increased support, as well 
-- Areca RAID, HPT RAID cards, more LSI cards with better monitoring (it 
appears -- maybe it was always there and I did not notice it)


Most of those are SATA related stuff though, no?

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:08 PM, User Freebsd wrote:


On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:



On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be  
dropping support for it as well ...


Many places are starting support for FreeBSD, or increased  
support, as well -- Areca RAID, HPT RAID cards, more LSI cards  
with better monitoring (it appears -- maybe it was always there  
and I did not notice it)


Most of those are SATA related stuff though, no?



Yes and no.  LSI has high end SCSI stuff.  I was just replying in  
general that vendors are not necessarily dropping support.   Some  
stuff is dropped, some stuff just not updated, etc.  And some new  
vendors or existing vendors with new products have increased support.


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:


You have no guarentee that any piece of hardware you buy will be
supported on any future revision of FreeBSD, or even Windows
for that matter.


True.


 I have lots of Intel gear in my basement that was
supported on various Windows versions in the past, which cannot
run today's Windows.  Your being unrealistic.


I am aware of their test drives. 
What doesn't seem "realistic" to me is that a vendor that dedicates the 
resources to have a test drive environment will not say that 
FreeBSD is "unoficially supported".


If they didn't have the test drive and they were completely uninvolved with 
FreeBSD I would have no issue. It is the fact that they are involved with 
FreeBSD yet when asked about it, they don't simply state what is.. it is not 
officially supported, but we have the test drive.. and we have people 
working it in some way shape or form.



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Marc G. Fournier writes:

the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support 
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
dropping support for it as well ...


But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on 
the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor.


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Marc G. Fournier writes:

The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5" SAS drives ... our new 
servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0 


How do those drives perform?
They are too small for where I work. :-(
At least for our "storage" servers..

Are those 10K RPM?



Other point is leasability ... from an accounting perspective, its better 
for me to lease servers


Good point.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:

the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support 
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
dropping support for it as well ...


But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what I see on 
the lists, people are voting with their money in their favor.


The problem is that 3Ware and Areca, I believe, are SATA vendors ... what 
I'm trying to do is keep to one 'integrated environment / vendor', and 
stick with SCSI ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:


On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:

the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's  
support FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec /  
Intel) appear to be dropping support for it as well ...


But companies like 3Ware and Areca are supporting it and from what  
I see on the lists, people are voting with their money in their  
favor.


The problem is that 3Ware and Areca, I believe, are SATA  
vendors ... what I'm trying to do is keep to one 'integrated  
environment / vendor', and stick with SCSI ...


Areca has, or is coming out with, an SAS controller according to some  
email I had with them last Fall


Chad


---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 6/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



[deleted]


---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net


Do you offer Xen hosting Chad?.. and back on topic... What's the point
of iLO Marc? What's wrong with having your server text message your
cell phone and then you ssh in and check what's wrong / fix it? If
it's a hardware problem you'll have to show up anyways, right?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:


Marc G. Fournier writes:

The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5" SAS drives ... our new 
servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0 


How do those drives perform?
They are too small for where I work. :-(
At least for our "storage" servers..

Are those 10K RPM?


I believe they are 10K models ... as for perform, I've been happy with 
them so far, but the servers aren't *that* old yet either :) ... they are 
about 1.5x the price of SATAs on HPs site, but, the SATA they have there 
are 60G vs the 72G SAS I'm using ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:


On 6/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



[deleted]


---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net


Do you offer Xen hosting Chad?.. and back on topic... What's the point
of iLO Marc? What's wrong with having your server text message your
cell phone and then you ssh in and check what's wrong / fix it? If
it's a hardware problem you'll have to show up anyways, right?


iLO allows me to power cycle my server, re-install the operating system, 
access the BIOS, access the console, etc ... all operating system 
independent (or with no operating system installed at all) ... the only 
'hands on' I need is, as you put it, to replace hardware that might go 
wrong, but, for instance, with 'just a serial console', like the non-HP 
servers, I have to get a remote tech to power cycle whenever the deadlocks 
I'm experiencing right now happen ... with iLO, I login to the iLO CLI, 
and tell the server to reboot itself ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Joao Barros]

On 6/28/06, User Freebsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:

> On 6/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> [deleted]
>>
>> ---
>> Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
>> Your Web App and Email hosting provider
>> chad at shire.net
>
> Do you offer Xen hosting Chad?.. and back on topic... What's the point
> of iLO Marc? What's wrong with having your server text message your
> cell phone and then you ssh in and check what's wrong / fix it? If
> it's a hardware problem you'll have to show up anyways, right?



If the server is 300KM from... no you don't want to.
If the server is in another country for example...no you don't want to.
If you have to pay extra for someone to reboot, put a cd, whatever on
the machine, no you don't want to.
Think this through outside your usual enviroment.


iLO allows me to power cycle my server, re-install the operating system,
access the BIOS, access the console, etc ... all operating system
independent (or with no operating system installed at all) ... the only
'hands on' I need is, as you put it, to replace hardware that might go
wrong, but, for instance, with 'just a serial console', like the non-HP
servers, I have to get a remote tech to power cycle whenever the deadlocks
I'm experiencing right now happen ... with iLO, I login to the iLO CLI,
and tell the server to reboot itself ...


iLOs rock! :-)


--
Joao Barros
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Francisco Reyes]

Nikolas Britton writes:


Dont get me wrong.. I can get approval to go SCSI since our
machines need at least 1T+ (the storage machines)


err.. should have say "can't get approval" to go SCSI.. We are using SATA.
 


Why? 1TB and up is a SATA niche.


Correct.. that is what we use.


You can buy 3 SATA arrays for the price of 1 SCSI array



Yup. SCSI drives are 3 to 5 times more expensive than SATA.


 Also... gigabit Ethernet is only 125MB/s
(Max) and and a single SATA drive can easily transfer at 50MB/s*.


But RAID can possibly do more than 125MB/sec if doing large sequential 
files..


When I last tested on a 100Mb switch vs a 1000Mb switch, the performance 
difference in our case (rsyncing data from Maildir) was around 25% to 30% as 
measured over a week. And this is mostly lots and lots of small files. That 
tells me that even with SATA we are able to go over the 100Mb limit.

8 Disks in RAID 10, with 2 hot spares.



limiting factor is probably going to be your bus with arrays/GigE so
SCSI is pointless unless you can take advantage of SCSI's TCQ with
high random access I/O loads


If we could afford it I still think SCSI would be usefull. It is not only 
about raw throughput, but how quickly you can get the data to the apps or 
to disk. Specially in a database or Maildir enviroment where there is lots 
of I/O going on.



*I just tested this with two Maxtor SATA drives the other day:
dd if=/dev/disk1 of=/dev/disk2 bs=4m. It dropped off to about 30MB/s
at the end but my average read/write was just over 50MB/s.


But that is mostly sequential work.. I think for sequential work SATA is 
definitely the way to go.. is when you get into the random I/O that 
supposedly SCSI outshines SATA.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joao Barros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nikolas Britton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD-Questions Questions" ; "Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> On 6/28/06, User Freebsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > > [deleted]
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
> > >> Your Web App and Email hosting provider
> > >> chad at shire.net
> > >
> > > Do you offer Xen hosting Chad?.. and back on topic... What's the point
> > > of iLO Marc? What's wrong with having your server text message your
> > > cell phone and then you ssh in and check what's wrong / fix it? If
> > > it's a hardware problem you'll have to show up anyways, right?
> >
>
> If the server is 300KM from... no you don't want to.
> If the server is in another country for example...no you don't want to.
> If you have to pay extra for someone to reboot, put a cd, whatever on
> the machine, no you don't want to.
> Think this through outside your usual enviroment.
>

I've supported and support those types of environments and it depends on the
application.  If the app is a critical "cannot ever go down" then
you have redundant servers, and I don't care if it costs $$$ to get
and keep a warm body there, your going to be spending that money.

However, the vast majority of apps are NOT "cannot ever go
down" apps, despite what a lot of the line managers in the organizations
would have you believe about their pet projects.  They can tolerate
downtime if it only happens a once or twice a year, for example,
even though they will scream about it, you just learn to ignore that.

In those environments, if the server goes down hard and won't
cold-boot, you FedEx one out there the next day and talk someone
over the phone into plugging it in.  And yes this can be rather expensive.
That is why in those environments, people generally set them up so
the servers -aren't- remotes, rather they just get better wan links.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Francisco Reyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >
> >> settled on HP Proliant servers .
> >
> > The problem with HP, as I see it,  is that they "officially" do not
support
> > freebsd.. I even sent an email to ask.. and the categorically stated
that it
> > is not supported.
> >
> > I would not want to standarize on something which is not guaranted will
work
> > in the future with FreeBSD.
>
> the problem is that none of the Tier 1 hardware manufacturer's support
> FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie. Adaptec / Intel) appear to be
> dropping support for it as well ...
>

This isn't true.  The big problem is that Adaptec has kind of a lock on
the SCSI market, because that market is a shrinking market and no
company in it's right mind that isn't in SCSI now would start trying to
get into it.  And Adaptec has always been very unfriendly to releasing
programming details, it's a corporate culture thing with them.  Just look
at a lot of their Linux stuff like their support for sata raid.  They waste
ten times the effort writing driver "blobs" and keeping them maintained
than if they just released a sample source driver for their stuff and
let the Linux maintainers use that as a base.  And people reverse engineer
their stuff all the time so it's not like it stays secret, not to mention
they have bought out most of their competitors so it's not like anyone would
have the resources to fuel a challenge to them.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[David Robillard]

[deleted]


In my case, it comes down to two words: remote administration ... HP is
the only system I've yet found that has it integrated as part of the
hardware ...


You will also find hardware integrated remote administration inside
IBM and Sun machines. They both run off residual power. So as long as
a single power supply module has electricity in it, you have access to
your machine via a CLI on a seperate IP. Even if the machine is
powered-off. Sun even offers remote dial in over a modem onto their
administration module. It's very good and I've been very happy with it
over the years, both with IBM and Sun. But I can't say as much as the
Dell admin module...



The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5" SAS drives ... our new
servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0


SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives.
They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5" SAS
form factor.

David

--
David Robillard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Montreal: +1 514 966 0122
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Joao Barros]

On 6/29/06, David Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5" SAS drives ... our new
> servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0

SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives.
They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5" SAS
form factor.


I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density
used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm.

--
Joao Barros
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[David Robillard]

On 6/29/06, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
> in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
> machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives.
> They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5" SAS
> form factor.

 I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density
used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm.


Well, there are two issues here: access time (rpm) and storage
capacity (GB). The access time deals with rotational speed of the
drives (rpm) while storage capacity (GB) does not care how fast the
drive spins.

The 15K rpm drives are nice to use when your application needs very
fast access to your storage. On a busy mail server or database for
instance. You won't need 15K rpm drives in a DNS server for example.

As for storage capacity, it's not really that important for the SAS
drives because you really don't need 72GB disks to install a UNIX
operating system such as FreeBSD :)  But it's still good to have the
extra space for your application.

But anyway, if you really need storage space, then a SAN is your best
bet (assuming you can afford it, of course) EMC, Hitachi and
StorageTek include so much cache (~256GB) in their boxes that the
rotational speed of the drives is not that important in the end
because most read/write operations are to/from this cache. Then again,
your problem here is that FreeBSD is not supported by those machines.

--
David Robillard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Montreal: +1 514 966 0122
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[David Robillard]

On 6/29/06, David Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/29/06, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
> > in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
> > machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives.
> > They're great, really. But so far I've yet to see 15K rpm in 2,5" SAS
> > form factor.
>
>  I'm talking out of my mouth here but maybe the extra storage density
> used in SAS compensates for the lack of 15K rpm.


Correction, it looks like the 15K rpm SAS drives finally exist.
Hitachi has some:
http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/menuitem.191a33649dd96d1d92b86b31bac4f0a0/

Cheers!

David

--
David Robillard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Montreal: +1 514 966 0122
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:41 AM, David Robillard wrote:


Well, there are two issues here: access time (rpm) and storage
capacity (GB). The access time deals with rotational speed of the
drives (rpm) while storage capacity (GB) does not care how fast the
drive spins.


There is a third and that is bit density.   The reason that that is  
important is that it can compensate for a slower drive (rotational  
speed).  If a fast drive with lower bit density has to rotate X  
rotation to get to the data, a higher bit density drive will usually  
have to rotate something less than X because the data is more dense.   
In simple terms (these numbers are made up to illustrate this and  
have no bearing on real numbers except that the concept holds:  a  
fast RPM with lower bit density might have 1GB per cylinder and hence  
say 2/3 of a rotation might be needed to get data X.  A higher  
density drive might have 6GB per cylinder so needs only, say 1/9 of a  
slower rotation to get to the same data).   This was amply  
illustrated by some 500GB SATA benchmark I read that had it equaling  
some much faster RPM drives for access time with much lower bit  
density.  Other factors play in here as well but hopefully you get  
the idea.


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier writes:
> 
> > the problem is that none of the Tier 1
> hardware manufacturer's support 
> > FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie.
> Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
> > dropping support for it as well ...
> 
> But companies like 3Ware and Areca are
> supporting it and from what I see on 
> the lists, people are voting with their money
> in their favor.

Mainly because they had drivers that required
little modification from previous versions. Intel
has a few other things on their plate, releasing
more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry
performance, so give them a break.

How long are vendors supposed to wait for the
FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance
they've claimed that they can deliver? I know
several network appliance vendors all stuck on
FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards
performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be
the one. 

FreeBSD is the OS that cried "WOLF", and the
vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The
infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process
switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and
they seem clueless on how to fix it.


DT



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Jerry McAllister]

> --- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > 
> > > the problem is that none of the Tier 1
> > hardware manufacturer's support 
> > > FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie.
> > Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
> > > dropping support for it as well ...
> > 
> > But companies like 3Ware and Areca are
> > supporting it and from what I see on 
> > the lists, people are voting with their money
> > in their favor.
> 
> Mainly because they had drivers that required
> little modification from previous versions. Intel
> has a few other things on their plate, releasing
> more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry
> performance, so give them a break.
> 
> How long are vendors supposed to wait for the
> FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance
> they've claimed that they can deliver? I know
> several network appliance vendors all stuck on
> FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step backwards
> performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will be
> the one. 
> 
> FreeBSD is the OS that cried "WOLF", and the
> vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The
> infrastructure is so poor (in terms of process
> switching times and scheduler efficiencies), and
> they seem clueless on how to fix it.

Must be a troll.
FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back.
It competes well with others out there.

jerry

> 
> DT
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> 
> 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:

> > --- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > > 
> > > > the problem is that none of the Tier 1
> > > hardware manufacturer's support 
> > > > FreeBSD, and a growing number of places
> (ie.
> > > Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
> > > > dropping support for it as well ...
> > > 
> > > But companies like 3Ware and Areca are
> > > supporting it and from what I see on 
> > > the lists, people are voting with their
> money
> > > in their favor.
> > 
> > Mainly because they had drivers that required
> > little modification from previous versions.
> Intel
> > has a few other things on their plate,
> releasing
> > more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry
> > performance, so give them a break.
> > 
> > How long are vendors supposed to wait for the
> > FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance
> > they've claimed that they can deliver? I know
> > several network appliance vendors all stuck
> on
> > FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step
> backwards
> > performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will
> be
> > the one. 
> > 
> > FreeBSD is the OS that cried "WOLF", and the
> > vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The
> > infrastructure is so poor (in terms of
> process
> > switching times and scheduler efficiencies),
> and
> > they seem clueless on how to fix it.
> 
> Must be a troll.
> FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back.
> It competes well with others out there.
> 
> jerry

No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who
spends most of his time on performance issues,
readily admits that 

- FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2
- FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than
Freebsd 4.x

The process switch times are 2-4x slower than on
linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower. 

Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
least not for a long time.

What's really frightening is that Dragonfly is
going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd, and
there's only one guy working on it. Its prima
facie evidence that IQ isn't cumulative.

DT

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nick Withers]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:

Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to
me... but maybe that's just me!

> > > --- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > the problem is that none of the Tier 1
> > > > hardware manufacturer's support 
> > > > > FreeBSD, and a growing number of places
> > (ie.
> > > > Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
> > > > > dropping support for it as well ...
> > > > 
> > > > But companies like 3Ware and Areca are
> > > > supporting it and from what I see on 
> > > > the lists, people are voting with their
> > money
> > > > in their favor.
> > > 
> > > Mainly because they had drivers that required
> > > little modification from previous versions.
> > Intel
> > > has a few other things on their plate,
> > releasing
> > > more processors to bail out Freebsd's paltry
> > > performance, so give them a break.
> > > 
> > > How long are vendors supposed to wait for the
> > > FreeBSD developers to deliver the performance
> > > they've claimed that they can deliver? I know
> > > several network appliance vendors all stuck
> > on
> > > FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step
> > backwards
> > > performance-wise. Now they're saying 7 will
> > be
> > > the one. 
> > > 
> > > FreeBSD is the OS that cried "WOLF", and the
> > > vendors are starting to ignore the calls. The
> > > infrastructure is so poor (in terms of
> > process
> > > switching times and scheduler efficiencies),
> > and
> > > they seem clueless on how to fix it.
> > 
> > Must be a troll.
> > FreeBSD performance is not what holds it back.
> > It competes well with others out there.
> > 
> > jerry
> 
> No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who
> spends most of his time on performance issues,
> readily admits that 
> 
> - FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2
> - FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than
> Freebsd 4.x

Would you mind providing a source for that information? I would
not be at all surprised to hear that a FreeBSD 6.x
dual-CPU set-up provides less than twice the performance as that
of a single CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up, but I will happily eat my
own (mighty tasty) hat if a dual CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up
performs worse than a single FreeBSD 6.x set-up. That having
been said, I tend to treat Robert Watson's word as gospel, but
I'd like to see it in a form I can trust (honestly, no offense
intended!) first (i.e., please provide a source for your
information :-)).

> The process switch times are 2-4x slower than on
> linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower. 

Could you provide me with a source here (Not trying to be rude,
but I'd be really interested in reading about this)?

> Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
> adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1.

Whilst I have trouble accepting these particular figures, I
don't doubt that there is *some* overhead in dealing with
multiple CPUs, from a kernel perspective.

> Again, readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
> There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
> least not for a long time.
> 
> What's really frightening is that Dragonfly is
> going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd, and
> there's only one guy working on it.

Please see "http://www.dragonflybsd.org/about/team.cgi";. My
maths ain't great (alright, it's terrible!) but I count more
than one committer. I'm probably just misunderstanding what
you're trying to say here...

> Its prima facie evidence that IQ isn't cumulative.
> 
> DT

Sorry if this appears stand-off-ish - I don't mean it do be! I
do have a bias in favour of what I see as the best OS ever,
though (better that MacOS 7.5.3, even! :-))
-- 
Nick Withers
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.nickwithers.com
Mobile: +61 414 397 446
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- Nick Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
> Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
> 
> Just thought I should metion that this comes
> across as rude to
> me... but maybe that's just me!
> 
> > > > --- Francisco Reyes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > the problem is that none of the Tier
> 1
> > > > > hardware manufacturer's support 
> > > > > > FreeBSD, and a growing number of
> places
> > > (ie.
> > > > > Adaptec / Intel) appear to be 
> > > > > > dropping support for it as well ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > But companies like 3Ware and Areca are
> > > > > supporting it and from what I see on 
> > > > > the lists, people are voting with their
> > > money
> > > > > in their favor.
> > > > 
> > > > Mainly because they had drivers that
> required
> > > > little modification from previous
> versions.
> > > Intel
> > > > has a few other things on their plate,
> > > releasing
> > > > more processors to bail out Freebsd's
> paltry
> > > > performance, so give them a break.
> > > > 
> > > > How long are vendors supposed to wait for
> the
> > > > FreeBSD developers to deliver the
> performance
> > > > they've claimed that they can deliver? I
> know
> > > > several network appliance vendors all
> stuck
> > > on
> > > > FreeBSD 4, because 5 and 6 are a step
> > > backwards
> > > > performance-wise. Now they're saying 7
> will
> > > be
> > > > the one. 
> > > > 
> > > > FreeBSD is the OS that cried "WOLF", and
> the
> > > > vendors are starting to ignore the calls.
> The
> > > > infrastructure is so poor (in terms of
> > > process
> > > > switching times and scheduler
> efficiencies),
> > > and
> > > > they seem clueless on how to fix it.
> > > 
> > > Must be a troll.
> > > FreeBSD performance is not what holds it
> back.
> > > It competes well with others out there.
> > > 
> > > jerry
> > 
> > No it doesn't, Jerry. Even Robert Watson, who
> > spends most of his time on performance
> issues,
> > readily admits that 
> > 
> > - FreeBSD 6 is faster with 1 processor than 2
> > - FreeBSD 6 is slower with 1 processor than
> > Freebsd 4.x
> 
> Would you mind providing a source for that
> information? I would
> not be at all surprised to hear that a FreeBSD
> 6.x
> dual-CPU set-up provides less than twice the
> performance as that
> of a single CPU FreeBSD 6.x set-up, but I will
> happily eat my
> own (mighty tasty) hat if a dual CPU FreeBSD
> 6.x set-up
> performs worse than a single FreeBSD 6.x
> set-up. That having
> been said, I tend to treat Robert Watson's word
> as gospel, but
> I'd like to see it in a form I can trust
> (honestly, no offense
> intended!) first (i.e., please provide a source
> for your
> information :-)).
> 
> > The process switch times are 2-4x slower than
> on
> > linux. Thats not 2-4%, thats 200-400% slower.
> 
> 
> Could you provide me with a source here (Not
> trying to be rude,
> but I'd be really interested in reading about
> this)?
> 
> > Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
> system
> > adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1.
> 
> Whilst I have trouble accepting these
> particular figures, I
> don't doubt that there is *some* overhead in
> dealing with
> multiple CPUs, from a kernel perspective.
> 
> > Again, readily admitted/accepted by the
> developers.
> > There is no way to recover that in
> efficiency, at
> > least not for a long time.
> > 
> > What's really frightening is that Dragonfly
> is
> > going to shed the giant lock before Freebsd,
> and
> > there's only one guy working on it.
> 
> Please see
> "http://www.dragonflybsd.org/about/team.cgi";.
> My
> maths ain't great (alright, it's terrible!) but
> I count more
> than one committer. I'm probably just
> misunderstanding what
> you're trying to say here...
> 
> > Its prima facie evidence that IQ isn't
> cumulative.
> > 
> > DT
> 
> Sorry if this appears stand-off-ish - I don't
> mean it do be! I
> do have a bias in favour of what I see as the
> best OS ever,
> though (better that MacOS 7.5.3, even! :-))

Robert Watson's own test, on freebsd-performance:

"I'll run some more diverse tests today, such as
raw bandwidth tests, pps on 
UDP, and so on, and see where things sit.  The
reduced overhead should be 
measurable in cases where the test is CPU-bound
and there's no clear benefit 
to more accurate timing, such as with TCP, but it
would be good to confirm 
that. 


Robert N M Watson 
Computer Laboratory 
University of Cambridge 


peppercorn:~/tmp/netperf/hz> ministat *SMP 
x hz.SMP 
+ vendor.SMP 
+--­+

|xx x xx   x   xx  x +  +   +
 +   +++ + ++| 
|  |___A|
|_A___M| | 
+--­+

 N   Min   MaxMedian 
 Avg 

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:


Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
least not for a long time.


So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system.  Easy enough to avoid.

Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> > Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
> system
> > adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
> > readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
> > There is no way to recover that in
> efficiency, at
> > least not for a long time.
> 
> So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. 
> Easy enough to avoid.
> 
> Chad

Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2
processors, with little additional benefit (as
other tests show). Easy enough to avoid.

Are you people stupid or delusional?

DT

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote:




--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:


Simply enabling SMP on a single processor

system

adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in

efficiency, at

least not for a long time.


So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system.
Easy enough to avoid.

Chad


Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2
processors, with little additional benefit (as
other tests show). Easy enough to avoid.



SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than  
FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor.  That is a fact.



Are you people stupid or delusional?


No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of  
performance either.


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nick Withers]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
> > 
> > > Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
> > system
> > > adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
> > > readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
> > > There is no way to recover that in
> > efficiency, at
> > > least not for a long time.
> > 
> > So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. 
> > Easy enough to avoid.
> > 
> > Chad
> 
> Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2
> processors, with little additional benefit (as
> other tests show).

Could you please provide evidence of your assertion (or, at the
very least, a link)?

As I said before, I don't doubt that there's overhead in
running an SMP FreeBSD system, but I strongly believe that this
overhead is overcome by the advantages of running such a set-up
on a multi-processor machine. That having been said, if you
have evidence to the contrary I imagine there'd be many that
would like to hear about it.

> Easy enough to avoid.
> 
> Are you people stupid or delusional?

Careful, mate. I tend to believe that it's wise, at least from a
PR point of view, to assume you're in the wrong until proven
otherwise. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. In the
mean time, I suggest you adopt a more friendly tone: The people
on this list are here to help you, but asserting that they're
either stupid or delusional ain't gonna get you any help in a
hurry.

> DT
-- 
Nick Withers
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.nickwithers.com
Mobile: +61 414 397 446
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Greg Barniskis]

Nick Withers wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:


Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to
me... but maybe that's just me!


No, it's not you.

Mr. Thom thoroughly obscures the fact that he has an occasional 
valid point to make by frequently hurling foul-smelling, flaming 
troll turds at anyone who dares to voice disagreement with him (or 
even anyone who in any other way presents an attractive target).


Many list subscribers have long since permanently ignored him. Most 
folks are tolerant of differing opinions, and even of having their 
own assumptions challenged, but not tolerant of name calling and 
other forms of cheap demagogy which really have no place in the 
formulation of a cogent rational argument.


As have writ others before me... please do not feed the troll.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
> >> system
> >>> adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
> >>> readily admitted/accepted by the
> developers.
> >>> There is no way to recover that in
> >> efficiency, at
> >>> least not for a long time.
> >>
> >> So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system.
> >> Easy enough to avoid.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >
> > Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays
> with 2
> > processors, with little additional benefit
> (as
> > other tests show). Easy enough to avoid.
> >
> 
> SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors
> can do more work than  
> FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. 
> That is a fact.
> 
> > Are you people stupid or delusional?
> 
> No, and the data you posted did not support
> your allegations of  
> performance either.
> 
> Chad

I doubt you have the capacity to understand the
tests, and as they say,  you can't educate the
woodchucks.

DT

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
performance characteristics of the hardware
you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
embarrassing.

--- Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Nick Withers wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
> > Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >> --- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
> > 
> > Just thought I should metion that this comes
> across as rude to
> > me... but maybe that's just me!
> 
> No, it's not you.
> 
> Mr. Thom thoroughly obscures the fact that he
> has an occasional 
> valid point to make by frequently hurling
> foul-smelling, flaming 
> troll turds at anyone who dares to voice
> disagreement with him (or 
> even anyone who in any other way presents an
> attractive target).
> 
> Many list subscribers have long since
> permanently ignored him. Most 
> folks are tolerant of differing opinions, and
> even of having their 
> own assumptions challenged, but not tolerant of
> name calling and 
> other forms of cheap demagogy which really have
> no place in the 
> formulation of a cogent rational argument.
> 
> As have writ others before me... please do not
> feed the troll.
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom wrote:




--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
wrote:






SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors
can do more work than
FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor.
That is a fact.


Are you people stupid or delusional?


No, and the data you posted did not support
your allegations of
performance either.

Chad


I doubt you have the capacity to understand the
tests, and as they say,  you can't educate the
woodchucks.


You can doubt all you want.  The plain fact is you said things like  
200-400% and the tests and commentary did not support that.  You also  
inferred that a 2 CPU system in SMP mode would overall be able to do  
less work than a 1 CPU system in UP mode.   Again, you have given no  
evidence that this is true and the stuff you quoted did not support  
that.  It did say that there is overhead in the SMP code that makes  
things less efficient and that the overhead is more than comparable  
OSes, at least for the Sparc T1 stuff.


You are the idiot, Mr. Thom.  You may be intellectually smart but you  
are a blooming idiot when it comes to public discourse.  And I will  
take the advice given earlier, to stop feeding the trolls -- you are  
a supreme troll.


I may make 2 recommendations:

#1 read "How to win friends and influence people" .  Here is a quick  
synopsis.  


#2 learn how to use your email program and to trim posts you reply to.

signing off
Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Danial Thom]

--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors
> >> can do more work than
> >> FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1
> processor.
> >> That is a fact.
> >>
> >>> Are you people stupid or delusional?
> >>
> >> No, and the data you posted did not support
> >> your allegations of
> >> performance either.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >
> > I doubt you have the capacity to understand
> the
> > tests, and as they say,  you can't educate
> the
> > woodchucks.
> 
> You can doubt all you want.  The plain fact is
> you said things like  
> 200-400% and the tests and commentary did not
> support that.  You also  
> inferred that a 2 CPU system in SMP mode would
> overall be able to do  
> less work than a 1 CPU system in UP mode.  
> Again, you have given no  
> evidence that this is true and the stuff you
> quoted did not support  
> that.  It did say that there is overhead in the
> SMP code that makes  
> things less efficient and that the overhead is
> more than comparable  
> OSes, at least for the Sparc T1 stuff.
> 
> You are the idiot, Mr. Thom.  You may be
> intellectually smart but you  
> are a blooming idiot when it comes to public
> discourse.  And I will  
> take the advice given earlier, to stop feeding
> the trolls -- you are  
> a supreme troll.
> 
> I may make 2 recommendations:
> 
> #1 read "How to win friends and influence
> people" .  Here is a quick  
> synopsis. 
>

> 
> #2 learn how to use your email program and to
> trim posts you reply to.
>
Here's the deal, Chad. On this list, all the
college-kid sysadmins tell me how great FreeBSD
is, but on the freebsd-performance list, none of
the developers refute my findings. If that
doesn't tell you something, then you really don't
have the capacity to comment on this or any other
subject.

You can't reason someone out of an idea not
reasoned into, Chad. You have no foundation for
your beliefs, so even prima facie evidence won't
convince you. Its called being a fool.

DT


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Jerry McAllister]

> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> > Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
> > adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
> > readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
> > There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
> > least not for a long time.
> 
> So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system.  Easy enough to avoid.
> Chad

Why would anyone want to enable SMP on a single CPU system anyway.
That would prove nothing other than that someone doesn't know
what SMP is.   Statistics about stunts like that might help pad
a student paper, but they don't reveal much of value.

jerry

> ---
> Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
> Your Web App and Email hosting provider
> chad at shire.net
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2006-07-13 11:31, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the deal, Chad. On this list, all the college-kid sysadmins
> tell me how great FreeBSD is, but on the freebsd-performance list,
> none of the developers refute my findings. If that doesn't tell you
> something, then you really don't have the capacity to comment on this
> or any other subject.

That's _not_ the impression I get from threads like:

  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2006-June/002043.html
  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2006-June/002074.html

These are, also, the only two threads in which your name appears since
January 2004, so before throwing around accusations about the FreeBSD
developers not answering your alleged "performance findings" -- of which
there is absolutely NO evidence in the freebsd-performance list archives
-- please consider that your false comments in a mailing list with a
wide distribution, like freebsd-questions, are NOT doing any good to
FreeBSD and have a big probability of being characterized as "troll
stuff".

Having this in mind, and bearing in mind the many contributions of Chad
to this list, which are of higher quality and in general contain text of
a far greater signal/noise ratio, I'm not sure it is so fair of you to
call people of this list "college-kid sysadmins" or to comment on Chad's
capacity to comment on any subject.

Nice troll, though...

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;

Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Burying your head in the sand is a common method
> used by stupid people that have no answer to the
> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
> your employers to know that you've wasted man
> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
> performance characteristics of the hardware
> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
> embarrassing.
>

I have been busy with other things the last week so I missed
this interesting thread, but I will still add my $0.02 cents.

I've used FreeBSD since 1.0 and 386BSD before that.  As
for claims that the newer versions of FreeBSD are equal or
faster than the older versions, that is simply absurd.  The older
versions of FreeBSD are faster, in many cases a lot faster.
Why?  Very simple, they are -smaller-.  They take less core
ram, their kernels are smaller, there is less code there.  All
you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.  Only
in the area of filesystem performance - such as if you have a
system like a Usenet News system with many hundreds of
thousands of files scattered over the disk, are the newer
versions faster.

But, the fact is we are (hopefully) not all building our servers
on 80386's these days.  When the cost of multi-gigahertz
equipment is as low as it is, and the cost of even 2-3 year
old single gigahertz name brand servers are so cheap, this
discussion is really of no importance whatsoever.

Historically in 95% of
installations out there, the way they solve speed problems is
to throw money at faster hardware.  As a business owner it
costs me less money to replace every last stick of server
gear in my big business every 2 years than to pay for the
insurance on the van out back that the delivery boy drives.
Only in extremely esoteric and high end database centers
and suchlike do they start to care about code optimization
and speed.  And I will wager that nobody on this list is
running one of those installations.

I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Freminlins]

Ted,

On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.




How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: "Support for
80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been
removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or
earlier."


Ted



Frem.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/24/06, Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ted,

On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



> All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
> and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.



How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: "Support for
80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been
removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or
earlier."




Use a i486 then... The point he's trying to make is still valid.

This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100
dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you
going to do with it? Play solitaire?

* In are hypothetical situation Windows 3.1 is a 64-bit SMP aware OS,
it's not in real life and this should help drive home the point ted is
trying to make.


--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/24/06, Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Nikolas,


On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100
> dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you
> going to do with it? Play solitaire?


You have this the wrong way round. The correct allusion would surely be
something like "imagine running  XP on a 80386", not an old OS on new
hardware. Old OSs don't always run at all on new hardware.



I used the Inverse example for a reason.


Anyway, I am sure that Ted can speak for himself.



Don't worry, ted will...


--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Greg Barniskis]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;

Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?



Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
performance characteristics of the hardware
you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
embarrassing.

[snip]


I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.


Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes.

But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his 
above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse 
to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1].


His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning 
the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't 
listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by 
facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his 
perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of 
FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false.


Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of 
calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests 
which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem. 
People with performance problems then /sometimes/ get upset (I think 
because the questioning and testing tends to assume they're wrong 
and they get defensive about it).


The problem is, scientific testing of an assertion must try to prove 
the hypothesis is false, and must posit (and also try to disprove) 
any plausible alternative explanations. There's just no reason to 
get upset about that. Raising questions about a claim, and trying to 
explain an outcome's root cause by alternative hypotheses, is in 
fact the /required behavior/ of critical thinkers.


When the OP of a performance problem does follow through with 
testing, and is willing to engage civilly in a logical debate, then 
generally there is a successful outcome to the thread. When the OP 
of a problem gets emotional about it and starts spouting cheap 
demagogy, then other users and developers quickly will walk away 
from the table.


Walking away from trollery is in no way equivalent to these users 
and developers sticking their heads in the sand on the issue. It's 
the predictable response of critical thinkers who recognize demagogy 
as a tool of /antitruth/. Those who consistently use demagogy are 
always more interested in winning an argument than in finding the 
truth, and any critical thinker either sees right through the murk 
of BS being tossed at them or least has enough intuitive sense to 
recoil from it.


And that is /the only reason/ why people ignore Danial. His brand of 
cheap demagogy is so potent that the smell of /antitruth/ emanates 
from his posts in a field so strong that it might as well be a 
physically repelling force. He might do better in politics or 
religion where these trollish "debating" tactics are the norm. But 
in a community of critical thinkers, the "truthiness" of demagogy 
will rarely find any traction at all.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Andrew Robinson]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;   
>     
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM    
> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?  
>
>
>> Burying your head in the sand is a common method   
>> used by stupid people that have no answer to the   
>> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
>> your employers to know that you've wasted man
>> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the  
>> performance characteristics of the hardware 
>> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly  
>> embarrassing.
[snip] 
>
> I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
> burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But I will  
> point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't  
> be. What the market wants is features, not speed. And
> that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.  

Writing as a USER on this list - I think that the Total Cost of
Ownership is also an important consideration.  I run FreeBSD because
the user-machine combination is more efficient, even if the OS itself
is slower - and I don't know about that.  I escaped from Windows via
Linux and settled here just when 5.0 came out.  I really like the
tools and the organization of the OS.  More features is nice, more
speed is nice, but I just like the way that it works.  Warm kudos to
the developers for that.

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Robinson  
Department of Mathematics and StatisticsTel: +61-3-8344-9763
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010 Australia Fax: +61-3-8344-4599
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Freminlins]

Nikolas,

On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100
dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you
going to do with it? Play solitaire?



You have this the wrong way round. The correct allusion would surely be
something like "imagine running  XP on a 80386", not an old OS on new
hardware. Old OSs don't always run at all on new hardware.

Anyway, I am sure that Ted can speak for himself.

Frem.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[jan gestre]

On 7/25/06, Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> 
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>
>
>> Burying your head in the sand is a common method
>> used by stupid people that have no answer to the
>> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
>> your employers to know that you've wasted man
>> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
>> performance characteristics of the hardware
>> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
>> embarrassing.
[snip]

> I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
> burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
> point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
> be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
> that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.

Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes.

But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his
above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse
to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1].

His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning
the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't
listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by
facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his
perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of
FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false.

Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of
calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests
which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem.
People with performance problems then /sometimes/ get upset (I think
because the questioning and testing tends to assume they're wrong
and they get defensive about it).

The problem is, scientific testing of an assertion must try to prove
the hypothesis is false, and must posit (and also try to disprove)
any plausible alternative explanations. There's just no reason to
get upset about that. Raising questions about a claim, and trying to
explain an outcome's root cause by alternative hypotheses, is in
fact the /required behavior/ of critical thinkers.

When the OP of a performance problem does follow through with
testing, and is willing to engage civilly in a logical debate, then
generally there is a successful outcome to the thread. When the OP
of a problem gets emotional about it and starts spouting cheap
demagogy, then other users and developers quickly will walk away
from the table.

Walking away from trollery is in no way equivalent to these users
and developers sticking their heads in the sand on the issue. It's
the predictable response of critical thinkers who recognize demagogy
as a tool of /antitruth/. Those who consistently use demagogy are
always more interested in winning an argument than in finding the
truth, and any critical thinker either sees right through the murk
of BS being tossed at them or least has enough intuitive sense to
recoil from it.

And that is /the only reason/ why people ignore Danial. His brand of
cheap demagogy is so potent that the smell of /antitruth/ emanates
from his posts in a field so strong that it might as well be a
physically repelling force. He might do better in politics or
religion where these trollish "debating" tactics are the norm. But
in a community of critical thinkers, the "truthiness" of demagogy
will rarely find any traction at all.


i thought the consensus was stop feeding the troll? so why is thread still
alive :D


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Freminlins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Greg Barniskis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Ted,
>
> On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
> > and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.
>
>
>
> How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: "Support
for
> 80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel configuration option) has been
> removed. Users running this class of CPU should use FreeBSD 5.*X* or
> earlier."
>
>

Oops, forgot about that.  Use 5.x then.  The statement is that newer
versions of
FreeBSD are slower than older versions.  The point was that this isn't
relevant
to 90% of users for reasons I already cited.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Oops, forgot about that.  Use 5.x then.  The statement is that newer 
versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions.  The point was that 
this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited.


IMHO, I'm not so concerned about my servers being slower then older 
versions, but the fact that, in some cases, we seem to be going backwards 
are far as stability is concerned ...


I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've 
upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is <1 year old, the other two are 3 years 
old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could 
provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the 
problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver 
... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the 
newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x 
...


If you check ICP Vortex's web site, you will actually find *vendor 
supported* drivers (and CLIs) for both fbsd4 and fbsd5 but nadda for 6 or 
7 ... so, from looking at that, it looks like they have bail'd on the 
newer FreeBSDs ...


So, for me, it isn't a performance issue, its what looks to be a shrinking 
hardware vendor support ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/25/06, User Freebsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Oops, forgot about that.  Use 5.x then.  The statement is that newer
> versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions.  The point was that
> this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited.

IMHO, I'm not so concerned about my servers being slower then older
versions, but the fact that, in some cases, we seem to be going backwards
are far as stability is concerned ...

I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three servers that I've
upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is <1 year old, the other two are 3 years
old ... after getting everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could
provide some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the
problem is the one thing common between all three servers: the iir driver
... the two older machines are running Intel 0CH RAID controllers, the
newer one an ICP Vortex card ... both were rock solid machines under 4.x
...

If you check ICP Vortex's web site, you will actually find *vendor
supported* drivers (and CLIs) for both fbsd4 and fbsd5 but nadda for 6 or
7 ... so, from looking at that, it looks like they have bail'd on the
newer FreeBSDs ...

So, for me, it isn't a performance issue, its what looks to be a shrinking
hardware vendor support ...



ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.

--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:



ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.


Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4  
for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS driver back  
in April 06 up on their website.


Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards and new  
FreeBSD drivers...  There is no storage manager aaccli like there was  
earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, assuming there is one, will work like  
the Linux aaccli program works on FreeBSD?)


So there is a very low level of support from Adaptec...They  
should really give their drivers to the project as part of the source  
and support them as well...  That is why I am using Areca now. They  
seem to support both FreeBSD and Solaris 10 much better than Adaptec.


I haven't bought an Adaptec card in 2 years though because their  
stuff gave me a lot of problems and didn't perform that well...


Chad

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Tamouh H.]

> 
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> 
> >
> > ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't 
> support FreeBSD.
> > We've already been over this once.
> 
> Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 
> and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 
> 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website.
> 
> Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards 
> and new FreeBSD drivers...  There is no storage manager 
> aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one, 
> assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli 
> program works on FreeBSD?)
> 

I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost 
immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed which 
would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working, not even the 
new linux ASM.

On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been looking for 
it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its no longer accepting 
the aaccli utility.

Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID controllers.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Philippe Lang]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three
> servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is <1 year
> old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting
> everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide
> some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the
> problem is the one thing common between all three servers:
> the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel
> 0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ...
> both were rock solid machines under 4.x ...

I don't have lockups on my 6.0 server, but I confirm there is something strange 
with the iir driver. On dmesg.*, I can read

iir0: Bus B: The SCSI controller successfully recovered from a SCSI BUS issue.  
The issue may still be present on the BUS.  Check cables, termination, 
termpower, LVDS operation, etc
iir0: SCSI-B, ID 3: MPI returned 0x0048

I have an INTEL SRCU42L raid board.

Maybe that's REALLY a cable problem I have here?

---
Philippe Lang
Attik System



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote:



On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:



ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't

support FreeBSD.

We've already been over this once.


Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3
and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and
4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website.

Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards
and new FreeBSD drivers...  There is no storage manager
aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one,
assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli
program works on FreeBSD?)



I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost 
immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed 
which would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working, 
not even the new linux ASM.


On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been 
looking for it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its 
no longer accepting the aaccli utility.


Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID 
controllers.


Stupid question, but has anyone actually email'd Adaptec support?  I'm 
having issue with the iir driver, I've email'd ICP Support about it, since 
its one of hte ICP Vortex cards that is causing the problem ... I got a 
response back to the effect of "We do not officially support FreeBSD 6.x, 
but can you give us details on the problem" ...


How many ppl out there are running FreeBSD with an iir device?  that 
includes the ICP/Adaptec cards, as well as Intel RAID controllers ... how 
many are running them on FreeBSD 6.x?  How many are getting "odd problems" 
with their servers that they can't really trace to anywhere, but aren't 
posting about it either?


The point is, if we keep acting as "individuals", vendors will treat as 
unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually 
*lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen 
to us ...




Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Philippe Lang wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three
servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is <1 year
old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting
everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide
some very detailed traces, and core dumps, it looks like the
problem is the one thing common between all three servers:
the iir driver ... the two older machines are running Intel
0CH RAID controllers, the newer one an ICP Vortex card ...
both were rock solid machines under 4.x ...


I don't have lockups on my 6.0 server, but I confirm there is something strange 
with the iir driver. On dmesg.*, I can read

iir0: Bus B: The SCSI controller successfully recovered from a SCSI BUS issue.  
The issue may still be present on the BUS.  Check cables, termination, 
termpower, LVDS operation, etc
iir0: SCSI-B, ID 3: MPI returned 0x0048

I have an INTEL SRCU42L raid board.

Maybe that's REALLY a cable problem I have here?


have you tried changing the cable?  if so, and it still happens, then its 
probably not a cable problem ... in my case, three servers and two 
different controllers all lock up since 6.x and all are running iir 
drivers ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/26/06, User Freebsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote:

>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't
>> support FreeBSD.
>>> We've already been over this once.
>>
>> Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3
>> and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and
>> 4800/4805SAS driver back in April 06 up on their website.
>>
>> Their support could be a lot better, but these are new cards
>> and new FreeBSD drivers...  There is no storage manager
>> aaccli like there was earlier :-( (maybe a Linux one,
>> assuming there is one, will work like the Linux aaccli
>> program works on FreeBSD?)
>>
>
> I've 2130SLP and the drivers Adaptec posted caused server reboots almost
> immediately, the documentation were lacking (device name has changed
> which would cause a failed boot) and as you said aaccli is not working,
> not even the new linux ASM.
>
> On that point, do you still have the linux aaccli file ? I've been
> looking for it with no luck. Just updated the 2130SLP firmware and its
> no longer accepting the aaccli utility.
>
> Advise.stay away from Adaptec on FreeBSD and especially RAID
> controllers.

Stupid question, but has anyone actually email'd Adaptec support?  I'm
having issue with the iir driver, I've email'd ICP Support about it, since
its one of hte ICP Vortex cards that is causing the problem ... I got a
response back to the effect of "We do not officially support FreeBSD 6.x,
but can you give us details on the problem" ...

How many ppl out there are running FreeBSD with an iir device?  that
includes the ICP/Adaptec cards, as well as Intel RAID controllers ... how
many are running them on FreeBSD 6.x?  How many are getting "odd problems"
with their servers that they can't really trace to anywhere, but aren't
posting about it either?

The point is, if we keep acting as "individuals", vendors will treat as
unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually
*lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen
to us ...



We need an Internet store that only stocks compatible hardware. It
should include all the BSDs as well as Linux, Mac OS X, and any other
non Microsoft OS. On the site they can just list whats compatible with
what and customers can leave compatibility feedback. Other part
requirements could be:

* Open documentation.
* No binary blob drivers.
* Source code for company developed drivers.

I would not limit the store to just parts that interact with the OS, I
want everything needed to build a system; this includes desktops,
workstations, rackmount servers, and embedded systems. I also want
networking gear.

If anyone knows of a vendor that already does this let me know.



--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Darrin Chandler]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> 
> We need an Internet store that only stocks compatible hardware. It
> should include all the BSDs as well as Linux, Mac OS X, and any other
> non Microsoft OS. On the site they can just list whats compatible with
> what and customers can leave compatibility feedback. Other part
> requirements could be:
> 
> * Open documentation.
> * No binary blob drivers.
> * Source code for company developed drivers.
> 
> I would not limit the store to just parts that interact with the OS, I
> want everything needed to build a system; this includes desktops,
> workstations, rackmount servers, and embedded systems. I also want
> networking gear.
> 
> If anyone knows of a vendor that already does this let me know.

This may be old news, but http://www.vendorwatch.org/ is making a good
attempt at showing how well vendors are working with the open source /
free software community.

-- 
Darrin Chandler|  Phoenix BSD Users Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote:


On 7/26/2006 07:35, User Freebsd seems to have typed:


The point is, if we keep acting as "individuals", vendors will treat as
unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually
*lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they will start to listen
to us ...


We could also make it a point to support those who actually support us,
such as 3ware, thus making it very profitable to continue to support
FreeBSD and providing financial disincentive to those who don't support
FreeBSD.


The problem with this is where is the dis-incentive?  those that aren't 
openly supporting us now don't believe they are losing any money from not 
supporting us ...


What I'd like to see, as I've posted on advocacy as well, is #s to show to 
those that aren't openly supporting us know to show them that there is a 
market for them ...


Supporting 3ware is good, but what if/when Adaptec buys them out ... 
Adaptec doesn't officially support FreeBSD, therefore, anyone they buy out 
would most likely change their policy accordingly ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:


* No binary blob drivers.


This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out 
with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with 
that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of 
hardware, that I can get support for it ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Darrin Chandler]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> 
> >* No binary blob drivers.
> 
> This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out 
> with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with 
> that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of 
> hardware, that I can get support for it ...

A lot of people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. It's not about
you being inconvenienced in this particular case. It's about choice, and
vendors supporting the customers by providing *specs*.

What if they provide a blob for FreeBSD but you decide you want to run
NetBSD on a particular machine and there's no blob? Or much more likely:
what if they provide a blob for Linux, but not for FreeBSD? Should they
also provide a blob for Plan 9?

If the specs are not open, then your choices are limited to what the
vendor wants to develop and support. And that's likely to be Windows,
and maybe Linux, and maybe maybe FreeBSD.

OTOH, if the vendor opens the specs then good, solid drivers can be
written for whatever platform. And ported. And if there's a problem it
can be fixed. This even turns out to benefit people who don't give a
hoot about whether something is "free" or "open" or not.

-- 
Darrin Chandler|  Phoenix BSD Users Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote:


On 7/26/2006 10:34, User Freebsd seems to have typed:

Supporting 3ware is good, but what if/when Adaptec buys them out ...
Adaptec doesn't officially support FreeBSD, therefore, anyone they buy out
would most likely change their policy accordingly ...


Not if they look at the sales and go, "2/3rd of their sales are
FreeBSD"...  Companies are pretty reluctant to drop support for a
majority of their users.


How do they know that 2/3rd of their sales are FreeBSD?


Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[User Freebsd]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote:


On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:


* No binary blob drivers.


This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out
with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with
that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of
hardware, that I can get support for it ...


A lot of people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. It's not about
you being inconvenienced in this particular case. It's about choice, and
vendors supporting the customers by providing *specs*.

What if they provide a blob for FreeBSD but you decide you want to run
NetBSD on a particular machine and there's no blob? Or much more likely:
what if they provide a blob for Linux, but not for FreeBSD? Should they
also provide a blob for Plan 9?

If the specs are not open, then your choices are limited to what the
vendor wants to develop and support. And that's likely to be Windows,
and maybe Linux, and maybe maybe FreeBSD.

OTOH, if the vendor opens the specs then good, solid drivers can be
written for whatever platform. And ported. And if there's a problem it
can be fixed. This even turns out to benefit people who don't give a
hoot about whether something is "free" or "open" or not.


My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd 
rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they 
require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use 
Adaptec products ...


Right now, I personally am being hurt more by having *nothing* from 
Adaptec, binary or open, then I would be if they'd provide something 
binary, since under 4.x, the Adaptec driver *was* rock solid, so I felt 
pretty safe upgrading to 6.x, which turns out was not so smart a move ...


How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, 
for similar fears?



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Darrin Chandler]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:48:52PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> 
> My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd 
> rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they 
> require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use 
> Adaptec products ...
> 
> Right now, I personally am being hurt more by having *nothing* from 
> Adaptec, binary or open, then I would be if they'd provide something 
> binary, since under 4.x, the Adaptec driver *was* rock solid, so I felt 
> pretty safe upgrading to 6.x, which turns out was not so smart a move ...
> 
> How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, 
> for similar fears?

Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of "consumer."
You don't, so you're left in the cold.

-- 
Darrin Chandler|  Phoenix BSD Users Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Gerard Seibert]

Darrin Chandler wrote:

> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of "consumer."
> You don't, so you're left in the cold.

I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They can
do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product, then
don't use it.

Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong with
that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they have
weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and concluded that
it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could produce enough
evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are simply beating a
dead horse here.

-- 
Gerard Seibert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead
of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one
of the facts that needs altering."

Doctor Who
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Darrin Chandler wrote:
>> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
>> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
>> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
>> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of
>> "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold.
>
> I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They
> can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product,
> then don't use it.

Darrin is not missing the point.  He is just making a different point,
which is (for many people, including me) quite valid.

> Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong
> with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they
> have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and
> concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could
> produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are
> simply beating a dead horse here.

If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''

*This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Gerard Seibert]

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

> If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
> for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
> their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
> open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
> so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
> be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''
> 
> *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)

Obviously, everyone has their own take on the subject. The bottom line
is that they, meaning the product or software developer, has a legal
right to do with their product as they see fit. If their marketing
choice does not coincide with yours, then find or create a product that
you find more suitable.


-- 
Gerard Seibert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
; "Nick Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
> >
> >
> >> Burying your head in the sand is a common method
> >> used by stupid people that have no answer to the
> >> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
> >> your employers to know that you've wasted man
> >> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
> >> performance characteristics of the hardware
> >> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
> >> embarrassing.
> [snip]
>
> > I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
> > burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
> > point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
> > be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
> > that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.
>
> Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes.
>
> But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his
> above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse
> to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1].
>

He does, but he is also right on this performance point.  The truth
can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences
between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with
the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should
be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the
irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of
how things are "supposed" to work, and paying attention to the kernels of
truth.

I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the
latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be
important in one of their new products, this isn't any different.  And
frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more
disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that
Danial has so far been able to come up with.

> His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning
> the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't
> listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by
> facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his
> perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of
> FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false.
>
> Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of
> calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests
> which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem.

Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim.  People
including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming
the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant.  So why even bother doing
it anymore.

But, you asked for it, you got it:

Machine #1:  Compaq 1600R, FBSD 6.1  Pentium 3 550Mhz

freebsd-cvs# dmesg
Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Jun  1 17:23:18 PDT 2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERICNOUSBNOFIRE
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (548.54-MHz 686-class CPU)
  Origin = "GenuineIntel"  Id = 0x673  Stepping = 3

Features=0x383fbff
real memory  = 671088640 (640 MB)
avail memory = 647458816 (617 MB)
MPTable: 
ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8
ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0
ioapic0  irqs 0-34 on motherboard
kbd1 at kbdmux0
cpu0 on motherboard
pcib0:  pcibus 0 on motherboard
pci0:  on pcib0
pci0:  at device 11.0 (no driver attached)
pcib1:  at device 13.0 on pci0
pci1:  on pcib1
tl0:  port 0x3800-0x380f irq 30 at
device 7.0 on pci1
miibus0:  on tl0
nsphy0:  on miibus0
nsphy0:  10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto
tlphy0

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gerard Seibert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
> > If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
> > for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
> > their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
> > open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
> > so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
> > be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''
> >
> > *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)
>
> Obviously, everyone has their own take on the subject. The bottom line
> is that they, meaning the product or software developer, has a legal
> right to do with their product as they see fit.

That isn't true.  Once I buy their product they have absolutely no right to
dictate how I use it, including if I want to reverse engineer it and write
my
own driver.  That has been proven numerous times in courts of law.

The problem here is that Adaptec is thinking that they have a right to
control
DISTRIBUTION of their product BEYOND THE POINT OF SALE.  You
see, if Adaptec releases a product that uses a blob, or obscured driver,
whether it's for FreeBSD or Windows, they know that in all liklihood their
product is going to last far longer than they want it to.  Adaptec wants you
to buy their product, use it in your current OS, then 2 years from now when
you update OS's, they want you to toss their perfectly working product
in the garbage and buy a new one from them.

Lots of other manufacturers do this,  Hewlett Packard is famous for it with
their all-in-one products, that only run under the Windows OS, lots of those
only have drivers for a few versions of Windows, and no driver was ever
released for Windows XP.  For another example I have a Sceptre SCSI
flatbed scanner here that has a TWAIN driver for Windows NT 4 but not for
Windows 2K.  It's on my wife's system, fortunately she does not use it much
but when she does want to use it, I have her system setup to dual-boot.

Now you can pontificate all you want on the rights of companies to do this
or that with their marketing.  But I am not talking legal rights here.  If
companies
only went by the book of what is legal, we would be awash in stock scams,
and the SEC would be investigating thousands of CEO's every year.  For
example, how would you feel if you had a severe peanut allergy and you
bought
a jar of jelly then had a reaction because in the same factory that the food
company
packaged jelly, they packaged peanut butter?  Some people have peanut
allergies that are that severe - no food contact has to occur, simply the
fumes
from peanuts are enough to set it off.  Well companies aren't legally
required
to disclose if they make a product in the same factory as where they make a
peanut product - but they do, I just saw a warning like that on the side of
Dairy Queen the other day.

Today, it is recognized in the business community that there is such a thing
as business ethics and that there are things that are legal to do but are
not
ethical to do.  And most business don't do them, you would probably be
surprised to know, simply because they aren't ethical.  In just about all
customers minds - cept perhaps yours - it isn't ethical for a company to
force obsolescense.  Hell, even Microsoft realized that with Windows 95.
You can still download all the older Windows 95 patches from the Microsoft
website if you know where to look, and they stopped supporting that OS
years ago.

Go look at the automobile industry.  You can still buy parts for 20 year old
card from the dealers, and 40 year old cars from the aftermarket - do you
see the major automakers suing the aftermarket because the aftermarket
makes Dexron transmission fluid available that I can use to keep my 1966
Torqueflight on the road?

Or how about my wife and her canning stuff.  Guess what - you can still
buy jar rings and seals for 30 - 40 year old Mason jars.  Are the companies
that make Mason jars out there doing unethical things like releasing new
styles
of Mason jars every few years that use different sized mouths so you can't
buy seals for them anymore?  Bullshit!

What Adaptec is doing is unethical.  Adaptec used to claim they were doing
it to keep competitors from stealing their secrets.  Now all their major
competitors
don't exist anymore (bankrupt or bought by Adaptec).  And the older Adaptec
cards that are no longer viable products in the market, thus nobody would
be interested in stealing their secrets - well why don't Adaptec release
programming
specs on those now?

I don't buy new Adaptec products because of this. 

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "User Freebsd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darrin Chandler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nikolas Britton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "FreeBSD Questions"

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


>
> My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd
> rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they
> require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use
> Adaptec products ...
>

No, that's not the way of Open Source.  You cannot advocate binary only
drivers for an open source OS, it is a slippery slope.  What is sauce for
the
goose must be sauce for the gander.  It is philosophy bankrupt to demand
binary support without the source code.

You gave Adaptec a good shot - you gave them a chance to keep supporting
you.  They failed.  It isn't your fault for upgrading, and it isn't FBSD's
fault
for changing so the binary blob doesen't work right anymore.

> How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops,
> for similar fears?
>

I usually go gradually on upgrading, so I'll see problems like this long
before
I've changed over any significant percent of my servers.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/27/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
; "Nick Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
> >
> >
> >> Burying your head in the sand is a common method
> >> used by stupid people that have no answer to the
> >> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
> >> your employers to know that you've wasted man
> >> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
> >> performance characteristics of the hardware
> >> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
> >> embarrassing.
> [snip]
>
> > I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
> > burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
> > point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
> > be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
> > that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.
>
> Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes.
>
> But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his
> above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse
> to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1].
>

He does, but he is also right on this performance point.  The truth
can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences
between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with
the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should
be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the
irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of
how things are "supposed" to work, and paying attention to the kernels of
truth.

I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the
latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be
important in one of their new products, this isn't any different.  And
frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more
disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that
Danial has so far been able to come up with.

> His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning
> the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't
> listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by
> facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his
> perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of
> FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false.
>
> Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of
> calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests
> which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem.

Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim.  People
including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming
the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant.  So why even bother doing
it anymore.

But, you asked for it, you got it:

Machine #1:  Compaq 1600R, FBSD 6.1  Pentium 3 550Mhz

freebsd-cvs# dmesg
Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Jun  1 17:23:18 PDT 2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERICNOUSBNOFIRE
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (548.54-MHz 686-class CPU)
  Origin = "GenuineIntel"  Id = 0x673  Stepping = 3

Features=0x383fbff
real memory  = 671088640 (640 MB)
avail memory = 647458816 (617 MB)
MPTable: 
ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8
ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0
ioapic0  irqs 0-34 on motherboard
kbd1 at kbdmux0
cpu0 on motherboard
pcib0:  pcibus 0 on motherboard
pci0:  on pcib0
pci0:  at device 11.0 (no driver attached)
pcib1:  at device 13.0 on pci0
pci1:  on pcib1
tl0:  port 0x3800-0x380f irq 30 at
device 7.0 on pci1
miibus0:  on tl0
nsphy0:  on miibus0
nsphy0

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[David Robillard]

How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for 
similar fears?


We still have some old Compaq ML530 machines running FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p17.
They provide essential web services, mainly authentication and MySQL databases.

FreeBSD 5.x and 6.0 can't boot on this hardware because of ACPI
related problems. I recently gave 6.1 a try and it works. The ACPI
error is still there, but the system can bypass this problem and it
runs fine. But since the services that the 4.x boxes provide are
critical, I'm still not comfortable to switch them to 6.1.

So for security reasons (4.x is getting old...) I've isolated the 4.x
machines in their own DMZ. I'll wait for new hardware to replace these
machines instead of upgrading them to another version of FreeBSD.

David

--
David Robillard
UNIX systems administrator & Oracle DBA
CISSP, RHCE & Sun Certified Security Administrator
Montreal: +1 514 966 0122
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Greg Barniskis]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim.  People
including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming
the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant.  So why even bother doing
it anymore.


No, testing is the only way to isolate the root cause and get it 
fixed. And there must be consensus that the testing methodology is 
in fact valid vs. the hypothesis. Without consensus on its validity, 
then yes, that test /is/ irrelevant and proves nothing. That's not a 
reason to forego pursuit of forming an accepted test methodology, 
and certainly not a reason to demonize those saying that a 
particular test is not valid. Saying so is just another hypothesis.


I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many 
others are either). I'm just saying that finding the root cause is 
not a simple matter, and that calling for consensus-approved tests 
and positing alternative theories isn't any kind of evasion, even if 
it seems on the face of it to question the very validity of the 
claim that there is a problem.


Testing and the search for the real root cause actually must 
question the validity of the hypothesis and propose alternative 
explanations and tests. Otherwise the earth would still be flat, and 
we'd all be lucky to eat every day, much less work on computers! =)


So, Occam's Razor just cuts and cuts and cuts, /because it has to/. 
Thus, anyone making a hypothesis has to be prepared to have umpteen 
other people attempt to shred all of their precious assumptions. 
Only assumptions that by consensus survive repeated attempts to 
shred them are actually considered to be valid.


Trolls tend to cling to shredded assumptions as if they were still 
valid. They begin to regard the wielders of Occam's Razor as their 
enemies, and this causes conflict that is wholly unproductive. 
That's where the process really goes wrong in a big way, and the 
people who would be allies (in that they are in fact eager to test, 
isolate and fix any validated problem) will start to walk away.


Shredded assumptions need to be abandoned and new testable 
assumptions need to be asserted. Then the shredding effort needs to 
start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is consensus 
that valid testing has in fact isolated the truth, because Occam's 
Razor just can't slice things any thinner. There is no other way.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
; "Nick Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim.  People
> > including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
> > then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming
> > the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant.  So why even bother doing
> > it anymore.
>
> No,

YES.

Calling for testing is bullcrap.  If you want to refute a statement then
do your own damn testing.

> testing is the only way to isolate the root cause and get it
> fixed. And there must be consensus that the testing methodology is
> in fact valid vs. the hypothesis. Without consensus on its validity,
> then yes, that test /is/ irrelevant and proves nothing. That's not a
> reason to forego pursuit of forming an accepted test methodology,
> and certainly not a reason to demonize those saying that a
> particular test is not valid. Saying so is just another hypothesis.
>

The above paragraph is all true.  Your attaching a true paragraph to
a false "no" with a comma in order to imbue a false statement (your no)
with truthfulness.  Basic debating tactic.

> I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many
> others are either).

OK, now your negating everything you just said?

> I'm just saying that finding the root cause is
> not a simple matter,

I never said it was.

> and that calling for consensus-approved tests
> and positing alternative theories isn't any kind of evasion, even if
> it seems on the face of it to question the very validity of the
> claim that there is a problem.
>

It is an evasion if all your doing is calling for testing and not doing even
some very basic basic testing - like I did - to attempt to refute or
support the statement.

> Testing and the search for the real root cause actually must
> question the validity of the hypothesis and propose alternative
> explanations and tests. Otherwise the earth would still be flat, and
> we'd all be lucky to eat every day, much less work on computers! =)
>

Testing and the search for the root cause doesen't question the validity
of the hypothesis, why don't you understand this?  testing RESULTS are
what question or support the validity of the hypothesis.  Until you start
doing the research, gathering facts, then your just blowing air up someone's
ass.

> So, Occam's Razor just cuts and cuts and cuts, /because it has to/.
> Thus, anyone making a hypothesis has to be prepared to have umpteen
> other people attempt to shred all of their precious assumptions.

Which they do by - what?  Posting test results as I have done.  Not
by just lazily calling for test results

> Only assumptions that by consensus survive repeated attempts to
> shred them are actually considered to be valid.
>
> Trolls tend to cling to shredded assumptions as if they were still
> valid. They begin to regard the wielders of Occam's Razor as their
> enemies, and this causes conflict that is wholly unproductive.
> That's where the process really goes wrong in a big way, and the
> people who would be allies (in that they are in fact eager to test,
> isolate and fix any validated problem) will start to walk away.
>

If they aren't interested in testing they are idiots.  If a troll makes a
claim
like the newer versions of freeBSd are slower, and all these people who
would be allies as you term them, already have test results they have
made that prove the opposite, then it is fine for them to walk away.
But, in this case, they don't.  They just are walking away because they
don't like the message or how it's presented.

> Shredded assumptions need to be abandoned and new testable
> assumptions need to be asserted. Then the shredding effort needs to
> start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is consensus
> that valid testing has in fact isolated the truth, because Occam's
> Razor just can't slice things any thinner. There is no other way.
>

Fine, then start by shredding the assumption that the newer versions of
FreeBSD are faster.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[jan gestre]

On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Darrin Chandler wrote:
>> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
>> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
>> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
>> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of
>> "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold.
>
> I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They
> can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product,
> then don't use it.

Darrin is not missing the point.  He is just making a different point,
which is (for many people, including me) quite valid.

> Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong
> with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they
> have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and
> concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could
> produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are
> simply beating a dead horse here.

If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''

*This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)

and if i may add, if they don't provide FreeBSD drivers for their
products, its their loss, they won't earn anything from FreeBSD users coz we
won't buy or stay away from their products. and i also think the reason they
are discontinuing support for FreeBSD 6 onwards coz they feel we are just
few and won't make a significant increase in their profit driven company,
one way of making us heard is by letting them know how many we are, why not
bombard them with request for support, IMO once they notice how many we are,
i'm pretty sure they'll give in.




just my 2  cents worth.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nikolas Britton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "Nick Withers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


> On 7/27/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > ; "Nick Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
> >
> >
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Danial Thom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Greg Barniskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Withers"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > > 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Burying your head in the sand is a common method
> > > >> used by stupid people that have no answer to the
> > > >> truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
> > > >> your employers to know that you've wasted man
> > > >> 1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
> > > >> performance characteristics of the hardware
> > > >> you've recommended. It must be thoroughly
> > > >> embarrassing.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > I do agree with Danial that most USERS on this list are
> > > > burying their heads in the sand on this issue.  But I will
> > > > point out that there isn't really any reason they shouldn't
> > > > be.  What the market wants is features, not speed.  And
> > > > that is what the FreeBSD developers are working on.
> > >
> > > Features over speed is generally the right equation, yes.
> > >
> > > But I think you're being too generous to Danial. The quote of his
> > > above was in direct response to my assertion that many people refuse
> > > to listen to him because he frequently engages in cheap demagogy[1].
> > >
> >
> > He does, but he is also right on this performance point.  The truth
> > can always be wrapped more palatably, but I think one of the differences
> > between a system administrator and a user is that a user can't deal with
> > the truth unless it's spoon fed in the nursery, an administrator should
> > be approaching it as a professional, which means ignoring the
> > irrelevant cheap demagogery and ignoring their own preconceptions of
> > how things are "supposed" to work, and paying attention to the kernels
of
> > truth.
> >
> > I have to sort through giant piles of horseshit every time I look at the
> > latest Cisco sales and marketing dreck, to find out what might be
> > important in one of their new products, this isn't any different.  And
> > frankly I find the saccherine cloying marketingspeak to be far more
> > disgusting and offensive then the lame kindergarden flames that
> > Danial has so far been able to come up with.
> >
> > > His response? Another whole boatload of cheap demagogy, questioning
> > > the intelligence, aptitude and moral character of anyone who doesn't
> > > listen to him, by way of accusations that are wholly unsupported by
> > > facts. I could probably rest my case right there, but I think his
> > > perception (and yours) that people are not receptive to claims of
> > > FreeBSD performance problems is quite simply false.
> > >
> > > Every time a performance question is brought up, I see a flurry of
> > > calls for clarification and for the formulation of repeatable tests
> > > which are generally agreed to be an accurate gauge of the problem.
> >
> > Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim.  People
> > including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
> > then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claimi

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 7/27/06, jan gestre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Darrin Chandler wrote:
> >> Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
> >> Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
> >> ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
> >> consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of
> >> "consumer." You don't, so you're left in the cold.
> >
> > I think you are missing the point here. It is 'THEIR PRODUCT'. They
> > can do with it as they wish. If you are unhappy with their product,
> > then don't use it.
>
> Darrin is not missing the point.  He is just making a different point,
> which is (for many people, including me) quite valid.
>
> > Most corporation are primarily interested in profits. Nothing wrong
> > with that. I like making money, as I assume you do. Obviously they
> > have weight the cost of producing FSBD compatible products and
> > concluded that it would not be profitable to do so. Unless you could
> > produce enough evidence to show them otherwise, I fear that you are
> > simply beating a dead horse here.
>
> If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
> for the hardware vendor.  They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
> their hardware.  What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
> open source driver with: ``Piss off!  We have you the technical specs,
> so you can write your own.  Our development and support costs would not
> be justified, but here's the spec... give it your best shot.''
>
> *This* is the point Darrin is trying to make :)
>
> and if i may add, if they don't provide FreeBSD drivers for their
> products, its their loss, they won't earn anything from FreeBSD users coz we
> won't buy or stay away from their products. and i also think the reason they
> are discontinuing support for FreeBSD 6 onwards coz they feel we are just
> few and won't make a significant increase in their profit driven company,
> one way of making us heard is by letting them know how many we are, why not
> bombard them with request for support, IMO once they notice how many we are,
> i'm pretty sure they'll give in.




Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's
uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
documentation.

What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad
companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a
day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the
FreeBSD main page.

The second thing everyone (All who use X) needs to do is get AMD to
force ATI's hand into releasing documentation. This should not be hard
to do because ATI's lead counsel is on the way out.



--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Darrin Chandler]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:50:57PM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> 
> Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
> pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
> on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's
> uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
> doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
> documentation.
> 
> What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad
> companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a
> day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the
> FreeBSD main page.

It's not FBSD specific, but there's http://www.vendorwatch.org/, which
is trying to do exactly that. They've got some good info, and I believe
they would welcome any updates or info on companies that they don't
have.

-- 
Darrin Chandler|  Phoenix BSD Users Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Amitabh Kant]

And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID
cards.

On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's
uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
documentation.



I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether
to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their
product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our
money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support
*BSD.

Amitabh
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Born, Clinton]

Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM
To: Nikolas Britton
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID
cards.

On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
> pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
> on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's
> uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
> doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
> documentation.
>

I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether
to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their
product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our
money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support
*BSD.

Amitabh
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:

Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to  
allocate our

shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!


That is not as easy as you make it out to be.  WHat one might in the  
short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when  
support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to  
replace it with something else...  So making value judgments like  
tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is  
part of determining the best tool for the job


Chad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM
To: Nikolas Britton
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID
cards.

On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve  
it's

uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
documentation.



I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether
to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their
product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our
money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support
*BSD.

Amitabh
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?

[Born, Clinton]

A predilection to evangelize tools that supports ones own belief in
software superiority is what curtails our ability to move any platform
forward. I would keep a hesitant eye on any individual that holds such
fervent beliefs. I have old NT servers that have run Disney.com for
several years and have served us well. Technology is an enabler, not a
divider. Too many people unknowingly adopt the later.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Leigh --
Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:31 PM
To: Born, Clinton
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?


On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:

> Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to  
> allocate our
> shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!

That is not as easy as you make it out to be.  WHat one might in the  
short term see as the best tool may not be such in 2 years when  
support is dropped and you are in a forced obsolescence and have to  
replace it with something else...  So making value judgments like  
tools that are known to be well supported on FReeBSD for example is  
part of determining the best tool for the job

Chad

>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: Nikolas Britton
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
>
> And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
> recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
> companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
> have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID
> cards.
>
> On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
>> pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
>> on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve  
>> it's
>> uses on other platforms, FreeBSD is my litmus test. If a vendor
>> doesn't support FreeBSD they can still pass my test by providing open
>> documentation.
>>
>
> I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether
> to support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their
> product in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our
> money bags, that it will make commercial sense to them to support
> *BSD.
>
> Amitabh
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]"

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"