Wasn't Dragonfly split off to do exactly what some troll here wanted?
Use FreeBSD-4.x as a base for a *BSD.
I would be curious to know whether Dragonfly-current or whatever they
name it fix the performance problems assumed (but not proven). Or
whether Dragonfly went into difficulties with thread
Quoting Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:00:54 +0100):
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He might have got further by volunteering to create and supply profiles
for those specific workloads that were faster in 4.x than 6.x on UP
machinery etc... i.e. hel
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do I need to start a project? Matt Dillon is
> already doing it.
>
> One thing that Matt has proved is that IQ isn't
> cumulative. Because hes doing on his own what an
> entire team of FreeBSD "engineers" can't
If you see/grep Danial Thom in FreeBSD related, consider this:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html
http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
My personal fav' is the first link...
How do we know that 'DT' even exists? Hmmm.
DT - S, go awa
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400,
> Michael Butler wrote:
> > For everyone's benefit then, please feel free
> to submit your patches
> > along with your technical analysis.
>
> I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then
> he can tell all
I'm not quote sure what you're trying to say,
becuase clearly your not using a SATA controller,
so you can't say the drives work in freebsd 4.x.
And I only used Areca because its what I had
lying around. I didn't try to make any specific
analysis, or say that SATA was faster than scsi,
only that th
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
>> For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
>> along with your technical analysis.
>
> I think his best bet is a fork, instead.
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on _his_
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
> For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
> along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on _his_ project exactly wha
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
The fact that you may not want to hear it is
your own problem [...]
You can't keep promoting this junk they're
putting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danial Thom wrote:
> There isn't one person on that team that knows how to fix what's
> wrong ..
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ver
On Sunday 15 October 2006 11:29, Danial Thom wrote:
> Unfortunately, FreeBSD 6.x with 4 processors
> can't beat 4.x with one, which is the entire
> point of this thread.
well well
even if you were that clever guy you pretend to be you're not entitled to
offend people with stupid, idiot, clown an
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > Stating facts is not trolling.
>
> true, but ...
>
> > The fact that you may not want to hear it is
> your own problem [...]
> > You can't keep promoting this junk they're
> putting
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
> The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem [...]
> You can't keep promoting this junk they're putting out. You can't just
> keep kicking the Matt Dillons out of the cam
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Hi Kip,
>
> Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
> of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
> virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
> trolling.
And you crossposted this to performance...why?
Kip might be right,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:04AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> We come from Earth; we're just more informed. The
> WD740ADFD's do NOT work on Freebsd 4.x. I'm sure
> you are talking about the WD740GD. I DID say the
> NEW ones. They are a lot faster than the GDs. I
> used them with FreeBSD 4.x with
Hi Kip,
Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
trolling. The fact that you may not want to hear
it is your own problem. I'm fairly certain that
you know that every single thing I'm saying is
true, bu
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 04:56:09AM -0700, Jason Stone wrote:
> for my home firewall/router, I used to use a general-purpose machine
> in a full-sized atx case, with lots of fans, and a 400W power
> supply. I switched to a soekris box, which is completely tiny,
> completely silent, and draws about
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of
> > > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production
> > > server) or by lack of money to buy
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > You should try the new 10K WD drives (the
> ones that just came
> > out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd
> have to use FreeBSD 6 to
> > use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on
--- NOC Meganet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> > The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
> > mean you have to use them, just like a MB
> with 2
> > sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the
> OS
> > is faster with 1 processor than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but isn 't
this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but also i386 is
practically marked to die out as well as UP systems are. All platforms are
going to be 64bits and m
On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of
> > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production
> > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ...
>
> Ah, hardware bigotry. Your colors are showing.
On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom wrote:
> The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
> mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2
> sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS
> is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only
> use one of the cores. The concept that you
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones that just came
> out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to
> use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get maximum
> performance.
You are so completely wron
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC
> Prowip wrote:
> > Hi, I am hooking in here without any
> intention to fire things up but
> > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not
> only 4.11 is gone but
> > also i386 is practically marked to
--- NOC Prowip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor,
> nor
> > is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux
> scales
> > with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to
> keep
> > 4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
> >
>
>
> Hi, I am hooking in here wit
The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2
sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS
is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only
use one of the cores. The concept that you have
to fire up both of them just because they're
there is just
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Robert Joosten wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when
> > compiling world or untarring large files.
>
> Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it
> with a SCSI thing. Most scsi imp
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> > > isn 't this discussion certainly usel
Hi,
> but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when
> compiling world or untarring large files.
Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it with a
SCSI thing. Most scsi implementations I know are much more scalable when
there's a realworld load suc
On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but
> > also i386 is practically marked t
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but
> also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems
> are.
Wow, I hope not.
Unles
> Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor
> is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales
> with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep
> 4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
>
Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but isn 't
this discussion cert
Unfortunately, the "certain tasks" are squid,
apache and networking applications, which are the
only viable reasons to use the OS commercially.
I've yet to hear 1 (thats *one*) commercial
vendor who built a product on 4.x claim to move
to 5 or 6 because of its superior performance.
The only ones I
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
>
> Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has
> admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as
> 4.x uniprocessor
FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is demonstrably false in
Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has
admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as
4.x uniprocessor, but you guys still continue to
claim otherwise. Clowns following clowns to the
land of nowhere.
Its virtually impossible to build a threa
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:17:31PM -0500, Derrick T. Woolworth wrote:
> Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using
> CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x?
>
> The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to
> believe you're not
Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using
CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x?
The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to
believe you're not really trying to solve any problems.
D
On 10/12/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PRO
No one said freebsd 6.0 is useless, but I promise
you that 4.x could do any "router" job better
than 6.0. And everyone on the FreeBSD team knows
it. The point is not the freebsd 5+ can't do a
job; its that it doesn't do a job better than
4.x.
DT
--- "Derrick T. Woolworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrot
--- Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > The right thing to do is to port the SATA
> support
> > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
> both.
> > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
> and
> > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away
> from
> > ever being
What a load...
Here's a report...
I have over 800 nodes installed in the field with FreeBSD 6.0 running
as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with 256MB of RAM. They
run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, dual-firewall with custom NetGraph
module for Wireless MAC authentication. The company
Please do not feed the trolls.
-Kip
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
>
> --- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
> >
> > [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED
>
> Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up
> hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs
> repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's
> what people do, and that's the beauty of open source.
>
>
> Eric
>
I agree, however, there appears
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
> The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
> and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
> 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
> FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
> ever being any good at
On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not
competitive replacement for
4.x.
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>
> [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The main problem is - 6.x is still not
> competitive replacement for
> > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about
performance in some situatio
48 matches
Mail list logo
