CD-Sized Image Of BSD-Based TrueOS Released For Servers

This is very funny. The owner of that linked-in seems like an awesome guy. Unfortunately not me. My middle name is Oscar, not Lang and yes, I am half Danish... but not living in Denmark (this is likely where you made a mistake). Your information finding skills amuse me greatly.

My blog however is just as relevant to BSD: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/c.../blogs/karsten

It's sad that you ignore some facts. I don't care who you are, but it seems you have some obsession (like few other people here: vim_user and maybe Sergio - the original linker to now famous anti-BSD blog).

[gilboa]

If its based off FreeBSD then they have a better scaling network stack then Linux does (for now)

I keep seeing this, but my own experience completely contradicts the above.
Any benchmarks to share?

FWIW we have proprietary software that can handle ~120HD/160FD Gbps. DPDK can reach ~200FD Gbps - both using stock Linux kernels.
Last time we checked FBSD (~8.x) we had issue keeping packet loss to 0 when using multiple ixgbe (10GbE) ports.

- Gilboa

[JX8p]

What delightful words from some delightful young men.

http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...sage-dwindles/

@pawlerson
kpedersen (true name:Karsten Pedersen) is a regular participant in BSD activities (http://dk.linkedin.com/in/karstenlangpedersen). He's a hardcore member of the BSD troll club. So there's no hope to talk sense into him.

That blog is a cesspool of bigotry, homophobia, racism, sexism, and utter stupidity. I would refuse to use it for toilet paper, let alone read it.

ZFS is not advance, it is significantly better compared to stone UFS and UFS2 and a little better compared to ext2. But compared to BTRFS and EXT4. ZFS is a piece of shit, slow, needs more then 4GB of RAM, corruptible, an scalable, can't complete with embedded devices. Plus ZFS is not a F(ail)BSD advantage. Linus now has it and it works far better on Linux then F(ail)BSD.

Also, UFS2 is a total piece of shit even with soft updates and journalling. It's journelling is nothing to shit compared to EXT4FS.

ZFS does not require 4GB of RAM. See ryao's work with ZFS on the Raspberry Pi. And ZFS on Linux is a fantastic thing, and it works very well nowadays - but it does not work better than on FreeBSD. By virtue of the OpenZFS project, all ZFS platforms have roughly the same level of support. And as for the 'corruptible' and 'anscalable', that's nonsense.

BSD always steal shit. Remember USL vs BSDI? The stupid BSD fucks at Berkeley thought they could get away with violating USL copyright so they got smashed in the ass at court. UC California then disbanded them due to this blatant academic misconduct causing BSD to become the fragmented mess it is today.

But they didn't. USL were humiliated. BSD had six files redacted over potential encumbered code; USL had to admit that they had wholesale copied vast chunks of BSD code into their product.

Woe!! Opera is dropping FreeBSD. last time I hear is FreeBSD users mostly use opera. I wonder what will happen now.

Opera has dropped everything they once stood for - Opera 15 is essentially totally different software. Very few still want it. It was a tragedy, but it happened over a year ago. We've moved on.

No, FreeBSD and ZFS are not fantastic project. All they produce is shitty performance and usability and contribute to fragmentation in the FLOSS community.

This is flatly wrong, and frankly, no one gives a damn about your 'fragmentation'. We'll work on what we damn well like, and if you don't like it, you can go cry in a corner. Our freedom to work on what we wish will not be taken.

HAHAHA... What a joke, You should see Hammer's performance compared to ZFS, BTRFS, EXT4FS and even EXT2FS. Greg K Hartmann even said Matt Dillion shouldn't waste time making his shitty OS like Linux when He could simply make Linus better. BTW. Good luck with porting Hammer2 to OpenBSD. MadDog Dillion has adopted the Linux/Systemd way of making his shit run on his OS only and run it well.

HAMMER is kernel code, so porting may be tricky, but it can be done. And yes - HAMMER's performance vs other filesystems is quite good

Actually, that is one reason not to use TrueOS no FakeOS. Systemd is vital to modern system administration. Plus, Linux's networking code far out performs BSD's.

If systemd is so 'vital', how come people down fine without it for so long? And Facebook disagrees with you on the performance on Linux's networking code.

Just toys, not serious stuff. Netflix itself is a single company. Compare their 30% to other companies and we got 1 to 5% like my sources claim.

NetFlix is a pretty major player. 30% of US internet traffic at peak time is bloody insane - that's a HUGE quantity! Think on it.

[kpedersen]

kpedersen (true name:Karsten Pedersen) is a regular participant in BSD activities (http://dk.linkedin.com/in/karstenlangpedersen).

This is very funny. The owner of that linked-in seems like an awesome guy. Unfortunately not me. My middle name is Oscar, not Lang and yes, I am half Danish... but not living in Denmark (this is likely where you made a mistake). Your information finding skills amuse me greatly.

My blog however is just as relevant to BSD: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/c.../blogs/karsten

[nanonyme]

Just toys, not serious stuff. Netflix itself is a single company. Compare their 30% to other companies and we got 1 to 5% like my sources claim.



Soft updates is an only nice feature of BSD file system, but there's nothing special about it. Ext4 has more features than UFS2 and is faster.

I thought I had read Netflix already had moved to dominating entire US Internet usage and operators tried to get them to pay for it

As for UFS - when used with soft updates, GJournal, and other GEOM framework features, it's well comparable to EXT4 - a simple, stable filesystem building on a rock-solid foundation.

I forgot to add: when you use GJournal it is recommended to turn soft updates off. I guess reality has proven soft updates as too complex and unstable to be suitable in modern file systems. That's probably why ZFS is so advocated to use in FreeBSD instead of UFS2+soft updates.

The fact that the FreeBSD Foundation receives donations from very big companies with huge market share in their sectors and that FreeBSD work is regularly sponsored by big names like NetFlix and DARPA/ARFL suggests that you are as wrong as can be.

That donations and companies are nothing compared to those who support Linux. Furthermore, netflix said they've chosen FreeBSD, because they're familiar with it. I showed you facts about *BSD market share and it's usage is very small in comparison to Linux.

As for ZFS, it is advanced. That is an objective and indisputable fact. It sure wasn't 'stolen' from Solaris either - that's not how open-source works

I didn't mean stolen in its pure sense. An only original and worth mentioning BSD file system is probably HAMMER.

As for UFS - when used with soft updates, GJournal, and other GEOM framework features, it's well comparable to EXT4 - a simple, stable filesystem building on a rock-solid foundation.

That simply means Ext4 is more advanced.

Oh netcraft ... you'll have to crosscheck because anything coming from Apple and the Sony Playstation uses the BSD networking stack. Netflix claims that their 30% share of US Internet traffic is powered by BSD.

Just toys, not serious stuff. Netflix itself is a single company. Compare their 30% to other companies and we got 1 to 5% like my sources claim.

I am not talking about linux, which I admit is a fine kernel. TrueOS is a complete OS centered around ZFS and it's just wonderful: the "boot environments" are awesome. UFS2 is no toy either, soft updates is a technology that only the BSDs have been able to achieve.

Soft updates is an only nice feature of BSD file system, but there's nothing special about it. Ext4 has more features than UFS2 and is faster.

Frankly. I could humour you but largely we agree. FreeBSD does have an exceptional filesystem, ZFS, pioneered by Sun Microsystems, one of the most innovative companies to have ever existed.

As many sources state, including this presentation: http://wiki.illumos.org/download/att...1/zfs_last.pdf
"ZFS is the last word in filesystems"... so I am pretty much forbidden to mention any others. Sorry

Linux also has ZFS support. However, you said its other file systems (so UFS1 and 2) are also more advanced and I want to hear about their advantages. Personally, ZFS is a big, memory hungry cow, so I wouldn't ever use it.

FreeBSD and ZFS are fantastic. Both great projects with a perfect UNIX pedigree

... but that said. I am also very interested in Hammer2 from DragonFlyBSD. I do look forward to the completion of the ongoing work to port it to OpenBSD. Really exciting stuff.

You rather meant both that killed UNIX spirit. Original UNIX didn't even support SMP. Hammer comes from OS that follows Linux way of doing stuff. It's an only BSD that I like.

[beetreetime]

Most importantly, it doesn't have the systemd aberration.

Actually, that is one reason not to use TrueOS no FakeOS. Systemd is vital to modern system administration. Plus, Linux's networking code far out performs BSD's.