FreeBSD 14.0 Released: Supports Up To 1,024 CPU Cores, OpenZFS 2.2 & Adds Fwget

[jacob]

When I last (physically) touched a Netflix OCA (Open Connect Appliance). admittedly a number of years ago, it ran FreeBSD (and nginx and bird).

FreeBSD "just works" for Netflix's use case. Could they, in theory, choose another OS? Sure, but FreeBSD "just works".

Of course, it works, there is no reason for them to switch to something else unless FreeBSD suddenly becomes unsupported (but that's not the case), or unless they want to upgrade the hardware and FreeBSD doesn't run on the new system (but in that case they will probably make sure to use something that FreeBSD supports well so that they don't have to port or change the software).

[CommunityMember]

IIRC Netflix used or uses FreeBSD for some kind of CDN router/load balancer.

When I last (physically) touched a Netflix OCA (Open Connect Appliance). admittedly a number of years ago, it ran FreeBSD (and nginx and bird).

FreeBSD "just works" for Netflix's use case. Could they, in theory, choose another OS? Sure, but FreeBSD "just works".

[jacob]

I never said there weren't and yes, that use case, it's very, very good at. However, in 30 years of doing IT I've never seen an "appliance" that's running OpenBSD, but have run across a few running FreeBSD (some random Dell appliances, some security "appliance" VMs we've randomly bought (don't remember the names), zScaler appliances use it). Not to mention Netflix uses it a lot for some of their tooling. Yes, they use Linux too.

OpenBSD is kinda of a one-trick pony. If that's the only trick you're interested in then you're good. However, FreeBSD can be tuned and locked down quite nicely and you can trim a lot of the fat if you're so inclined.

IIRC Netflix used or uses FreeBSD for some kind of CDN router/load balancer. Apart from that your experience seems to be different from mine, I've seen a number of OpenBSD-based appliances but I don't remember seeing a FreeBSD one (apart from that Netflix system which I haven't personally interacted with). I suppose you can describe OpenBSD as a one trick pony, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, to the contrary. If one is looking for a versatile, general-purpose OS, we already have Linux and it's pretty much unmatched in that role. But there are niches that call for specialised software and OpenBSD fills one of those. It doesn't do many things, but it's really excellent for the thing it does.

[rhavenn]

I mean there are loads of important, real world applications that depend on OpenBSD (various sorts of network devices, mainly). Other BSDs, not so much (yes I know that MacOS uses FreeBSD userland etc, no one cares about that).

I never said there weren't and yes, that use case, it's very, very good at. However, in 30 years of doing IT I've never seen an "appliance" that's running OpenBSD, but have run across a few running FreeBSD (some random Dell appliances, some security "appliance" VMs we've randomly bought (don't remember the names), zScaler appliances use it). Not to mention Netflix uses it a lot for some of their tooling. Yes, they use Linux too.

OpenBSD is kinda of a one-trick pony. If that's the only trick you're interested in then you're good. However, FreeBSD can be tuned and locked down quite nicely and you can trim a lot of the fat if you're so inclined.

[AlanTuring69]

FreeBSD is absolutely the leading BSD in terms of install-base and functionality. It might not be unhackable if you dump it into a vat of liquid helium and inspect the transistor states with an electron microscope unlike OpenBSD but it's very, very good for a BSD. On the infra/enterprise space it's genuinely very impressive while it's almost viable as a desktop OS depending on your wants/needs. The OpenBSD team have contributed tons, especially to anything involving security, but it's the OS that we're talking about and not the team or the people.

[jacob]

That 100% depends on what your priorities and needs are. OpenBSD is secure by default for sure and Theo and team have contributed a SHIT ton to the world, but it also doesn't have ZFS support and performance can be questionable.

I mean there are loads of important, real world applications that depend on OpenBSD (various sorts of network devices, mainly). Other BSDs, not so much (yes I know that MacOS uses FreeBSD userland etc, no one cares about that).

[jacob]

the linux say in the changelogs how many core it can handle?, or there a way to see that?

Honestly I don't know, I don't know if there is any hard upper limit. As to what the practical limit is, it's probably fairly high since IIRC it has been used to run NUMA systems with 8192 cores.

[rhavenn]

I don't think than DrangonlyBSD can claim to be any sort of success except as a hobby project. OpenBSD is IMHO the real "leading" BSD operating system, the one that's truly relevant in the actual real world.

That 100% depends on what your priorities and needs are. OpenBSD is "secure by default" or attemtps to be for sure and Theo and team have contributed a SHIT ton to the world, but it also doesn't have ZFS support and performance can be questionable.

[jacob]

ASLR seventeen years after Linux, PIE eight years after Fedora. Theo was right.

phoronix


Leading? OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD don't agree.

I don't think than DrangonlyBSD can claim to be any sort of success except as a hobby project. OpenBSD is IMHO the real "leading" BSD operating system, the one that's truly relevant in the actual real world.

[kylew77]

the linux say in the changelogs how many core it can handle?, or there a way to see that?

"The SMP system now supports up to 1024 cores on amd64 and arm64. Many kernel CPU sets are now dynamically allocated to avoid consuming excessive memory. The kernel cpuset ABI has been updated to support the higher limit. 76887e84be97 d1639e43c589 9051987e40c5 e0c6e8910898 (Sponsored by The FreeBSD Foundation)"

From the release notes.