3/24 Wow! FreeBSD sure is stable! After seeing soda's amazing uptime
record, I sure want to go replace my Linux boxes with FreeBSD!
Please do not delete this, or burn down Linus' house because I have
blasphemed the holy FreeBSD. I'd love to see a genuine discussion with
examples from both sides comparing the stability of *modern* FreeBSD
and Linux machines running on x86 hardware. -dans
\_ Wow! You're sure a dumbass!
\_ Wow! You're a cunt. A not particularly amusing one at that.
I'm sorry, did I use facts to mock your operating system of
choice? -dans
\_ Hope you are not blaming all instability on our box, EECS network
is undergoing some maintenance (as noted in motd.official) and thus
much of any downtime experienced is due to all of eecs net being
unavailible. -mrauser
\_ How can you possibly compare soda to your X many production Linux
or anything else installs? Soda is nothing like a production box.
Also, the idea that anyone's boxes have uptime of 2+ years just
means someone isn't patching them. It would be a very rare 2 year
window for any mainstream unix/unix-like OS to not have a
must-reboot patch, kernel update, etc. Lengthy uptimes don't
impress me with the quality of the OS. They make me unimpressed
with the lack of administrative quality time devoted to maintaining
the machines. Service uptime is critical, box uptime is not.
Service uptime is what various load balancing schemes exist to
provide. As far as having latest shiney new driver or not, that
depends on the environment. A large budget facility doesn't need
to care because the new shiney is coming from a large company who
damned well better provide a production quality driver. In a lesser
environment I find it difficult to accept that there's some new
shiney that was required for production business operations that
didn't come with a good driver. The rest is just toys. Any
hardware product that doesn't come with a good driver isn't
production ready and doesn't go into my data center. As far as
desktops, shrug, I don't care. That's all eye candy anyway. Most
users were just as productive with DOS 3.1 as they are with whatever
is on their system today. Probably more productive then since
multi-tasking was extremely difficult so there were no distractions
from email, surfing, downloading that new mp3, tweaking their
desktop brackground to "just the right shade of pink", etc.
\_ soda runs FreeBSD. soda is unstable. By induction all FreeBSD
\- sloda runs FreeBSD. soda is unstable. By induction all FreeBSD
machines are unstable and dans' brain has been classified as: small.
Did you write this or did tom forge this to make you look like
did you write this or did holube forge this to make you look like
an idiot?
\_ If you're the same asshole who called me a dumbass the last time,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read
my response the first time. You don't deserve I suspect you
nuked the post when I lambasted your beloved FreeBSD with facts.
My original comment is snarky and sarcastic, but dumbass guy
[you?] is[/are] a stupid, humorless git who doesn't understand
that humor and rigorous argument do not always serve the same
purposes. He wanted to throw a temper tantrum. I'd like to read
actual information. I'll repeat what I said last time: in my
experience with many (n > 50) modern (within in the last 4-5
years) Linux boxen under moderate to heavy load, they have
proved quite stable (ignoring several boxes with bad hardware,
uptime ranging from 6 months to 2+ years and counting). In my,
admittedly limited (n approx 10), experience with FreeBSD hosts
in the same time frame, uptime is around 3 months average, with
2 instances like soda where uptime is measured in days or weeks,
sometime as bad as hours. If you want to be a dick, for reasons
I don't understand, a disgustingly common characteristic of
members of the FreeBSD community, and delete this thread, go
ahead, I will repost.
P.S. tom, is that you? I know you're delusional, but, seriously
this is over the top.
-dans
\_ Anybody want to make bets on whether dans will suffer
a brain malfunction or leave soda in disgust in the
next 12 months. He seems to be showing some of the
early warning signs. Yanking the dans chain is now
clearly an amateur sport. Tom on the other hand is
immune to being shamed even after repeatedly making
immune to being sshamed even after repeatedly making
a fool out of himself.
\_ You're a pretty sorry troll, I give you a 2.7 out of 10.
Score includes the following mandatory deductions:
-2 not funny
-.7 verbose, which says a lot coming from someone with my
verbal diarrhea.
P.S. Interrogative statements are concluded with a
question mark, not a period.
P.P.S. I already suffer from a genetic brain malfunction,
the good news is that it's merely life threatening, not
behavorial like the dementia I suspect tom suffers from. :)
P.P.P.S. I'll take that action. $100 says you're wrong.
-dans
\_ Please don't get mad at me, but I think you may have been
trolled. Dude, name calling, insults, whatever, it's just
the motd and it's the norm, m'kay? -not the pp
\_ Oh, it's cool. I don't mind being trolled, especially
when it's well done, unlike the preceding. I really want
to hear people's experiences with modern Linux and FreeBSD
uptimes. -dans
\- the problem with AssOS is not uptime. --psb
\_ Please enlighten me oh mighty, unbiased partha!
What is the problem with Linux? Why is AssholeOS
superior?
One non-technical aspect of the two operating
systems that seems to play a key role in the success
and popularity of each is the ethos of their
supporting communities.
The Linux community is fundamentally more
supportive and inclusive. This gives rise to a
particular problem, the hordes of L1NUX RUL3Z, M$
SUX0RZ kiddies, but, as long as you're not reading
Slashdot, it seems pretty easy to ignore them.
Also, some grow up into smart, clueful people.
Plus, the larger community size means there are more
people with clue in very specific, narrow areas who
take the time to write code, documentation, or
otherwise. IMO, it's a net benefit for knowledge,
and it's obvious that Linux is significantly more
popular and widely used than FreeBSD.
The FreeBSD community, on the other hand, is
fundamentally exclusive and critical. It seems to
be peopled largely with folks who believe they have
clue that was earned through years of pain and toil,
and lashings at the hands of community elders.
Consequently, members of the FreeBSD community seem
more interested in making n00bs suffer like they did
rather then helping folks out. Its hard to evaluate
whether typical members of the FreeBSD community
actually have clue or not since they are so
unwilling to get of their high horse and share.
\- freebsd community unwilling to share?
this is delusional. kqueue, softupdate,
bpf, sort of, VM work.
Notably, Google uses Linux, not FreeBSD, are the
people that made that decision idiots and dumbasses?
Why? -dans
\- why do you think i am biased? ... i assume
you are claiming that my judgement is colored
by something other than the relevant facts,
rather than i have come to form an opinion?
i can accept that i am biased in my evaluation
of say MSFT products because i think they are
evil fuckers, but i dont think i am a priori
biased against linux. --psb
\_ You've been using the name AssOS for years.
This suggests that you are judging Linux based
on what it was many years ago when FreeBSD was
clearly superior. Wouldn you fault Mac OS X
because Mac OS 9 left much to be desired? Of
course not, that would be biased. When was
the last time you looked at a modern version
of Linux without years of historical bias? I
looked at FreeBSD 5.x RELEASE about six months
ago. Also, you have yet to state any facts,
other than that stability is not the problem
with Linux. What is? -dans
\- i dont "look at OSes" ... i have to work
with them fairly consistently and frankly
one of the irritations with linux is the
"working set" of problems changes a lot.
anyway, my point above was the problem
with linux or freebsd is not "it keeps
crashing". a rolex might be better than
a rolexxx because the hands are less likely
to fall off, but that's not a great standard
to evaluate a ppatek vs rolex. BTW, i think
solaris is a good operating system evaluated
with evans hall rather than main street
criteria. from a main street perspective
yes it is annoying it doesnt ship with emacs
but that's not really a technical criticism
of the OS. i wish linux was in better shape
while in the case of MSFT, i would be
delighed to see them fail, get sued, lose
mkt share etc. --psb
\_ I work with operating systems too. But
first I look at an OS to decide if I
want to work with it or not. In the
want to work with it or not. You may
not have that choice. In the
case of soda, however, and at least one
other FreeBSD box I worked on or with,
the issue was ``it keeps crashing,''
and, frankly that's a non-starter.
I think you and I have directly opposing
attitudes on what we feel is important
in a UNIX operating system. It appears
you like FreeBSD because it doesn't
change, or it changes at a pace that does
not disrupt your work habits. I like
Linux because it has wide support for
most new hardware, and drivers mature at
an alarming rate. I find that using a
solid distribution like Debian or
[K]Ubuntu goes a long way to keeping the
working set from changing too
drastically. It's true that,
historically, the Linux kernel gets a
major overhaul every every 1.5 to 2
years. This is often a big change,
but it's rare that one *must* upgrade
the kernel, much less do it urgently.
Of course, if you want support for shiny
new hardware like me, sometimes you need
to bite the bullet and do it. Don't
even get me started on Solaris. -dans
even get me started on Solaris. I agree
that not shipping with emacs is not a
technical criticism, but, since the vast
majority of software I use in any
computing environment is Free/Open
Source, it's important to have an easy
way to install software without needing
to build it from scratch and deal with
dependency hell. Solaris is awful for
this, its package management tools are
ancient. Also, since Sun makes a lot of
money off of training and support
contracts, it is disincentivized from
making Solaris easier to administer and
use. -dans
\- when linux breaks something like
dump because of their performance-
related decisions about how to
deal with the buffer cache, i dont
you cant just dismiss that "disrupting
my personal work habits" or when
they keep changing packet capture
details. yes, i agree linux supports
more hardware, probably has better
desktop toys etc. however if you
ever tried debuggins a crash dump
you would be pretty clear why
solaris >> linux. and i think
ports is nicer than rpm and the
design issue generally offsets the
matter of ports lagging rpm often
for shiny new stuff. sure, i've run
into problems with bsd in somewhat
obscure areas like udp coalescing
with extremely small latency paths
or pcap on machine with multiple
interfaces and potentically
asymmetric routes ... but on linux
i have run into problem with cp
and grep. --psb
--psb
and grep. BTW, pcap is an area
solaris/streams,dlpi sort of sucks
compared to bsd/bpf too. --psb
\_ I am well aware that the Solaris
kernel and process/memory tracing
utilities are vastly superior to
FreeBSD's and Linux's. It's just
not something that's relevant to
my present day needs. rpm is shit,
and I'm not a big fan of RedHat or
its derivatives (I haven't touched
it recently, I hear its'
improved). For package management,
apt and its derivatives are so
vastly superior to any other
package management system I know
of. Does ports even support binary
packages? It's 2006. Needing to
\- you are unaware of freebsd
options here.
compile every piece of software
that runs on a modern system is
ridiculous. Yes, compilation
should always be available as a
fallback/worst case scenario, but
it shouldn't be the default mode
of operation. Keep changing
packet capture details? Doesn't
everyone just use libpcap? What's
\- do you understand
libpcap doesnt use
libpcap?
changing regularly in Linux? I
suppose if you're used to dump,
that's all well and good. For my
backup needs, rsync is a superior
replacement for dump. It sounds
\- dump is just one
manifestation of
something fudamentally
broken. i cannot give
you and os lecture here
you an os lecture here.
actually i am a little
curious how fsck works
on AssOS when linus
said he didnt approve
of raw devices.
like you got bit on the ass by
some truly annoying things in the
past. Do these problems exist on
*modern* Linux machines? Is it
possible that the problem lies not
with the kernel, but with the
distribution? I have *never*
encountered problems like these on
Debian, and I've been using it
since the 2.2 kernel days. -dans
\- yes, it is basically inevitable
we will continue to be bit on
the ass because the problems
are not essentially technical
but the priorities of the
project. see e.g. the recent
motd discussion about 64bit.
ok maybe freebsd is lagging in
64bit clean file systems, but
at least you dont get weird
surprises. oh, freebsd 5.4
vs linux 2.6 on heavy gigabit
links recent enough for you
to talk about packet capture
experiences? trust me, it isnt
even close. yes, you can do
some hacking and tweaking and
get some hardware configs
where linux is comparable
or better [on intel+smp+special
kernel patches on linux while
running a mysql vs bsd out of
the box running postgres] but
fundamentally, at high rates
where you are seeing 30% drops
on linux, bsd is dropping 0.
when it come to operating systems
half a loaf is not always better
than none. say linux has a
flakey infiniband driver a
year before freebsd has a solid
one. it's unclear that year of
lead time is a benefit. --psb
\_ We can continue to split
hairs over bug foo that bit
us on the ass that one time
or driver bar that wasn't
available that other time.
I could counter your
hypothetical with the fact
that, generally speaking,
Linux supports more hardware
options which increases the
likelihood that, for any
given class of device, at
least one will have a driver
that does not suck, and I
easily find out which one
with Google. Also, comparing
mysql to postgres is apples
and oranges. mysql is fast
because it cuts corners and
is not ACID compliant with
the default myISAM tables.
I am dubious that, if you
ran the same database on
both systems, the
performance characteristics
would differ dramatically.
If mysql was 10% faster on
FreeBSD, don't you think
someone would be trumpeting
this fact loudly and
regularly? Also, if FreeBSD
was so much faster or better
suited for production
environments, why does Linux
dominate in industry? Why
did the smart folks at
Google choose Linux over
FreeBSD? The questions are
largely rhetorical, but I
think they make it clear
that Linux is not a toy, and
referring to it as AssOS is
silly and a tad juvenile.
At this point, I'm willing
to agree to disagree since
our OS needs and desires are
quite different. WRT soda,
if we rule out hardware
problems, I think it's
apparent that, FreeBSD is
not the best choice. No,
I'm not advocating that Soda
run Linux, but I would like
it to be stable. OS X
anyone? :) -dans
\_ OSX crashes just fine
for me.
The overhead of Mach, the netinfo stuff _/
and the general difficulty of remote admin'ing OS X sans Apple tools
make it less than ideal for Soda. My experience w/ linux customers
suggests that linux works well in certain environments (single
function dedicated servers: ex. technical computing,db serving, &c.;
desk- tops) but its is not very stable/secure for a heavily used
multiuser system like soda. Personally I think that OpenSolaris
would be a better option for soda.
multi- user system like soda. Personally I think that OpenSolaris
would be a better bet for soda.
Re FreeBSD - some reasons I prefer it to Linux are:
1. pf and altq - much nicer than anything inLinux. (Yes I run OBSD
\_ The overhead of Mach,
the netinfo stuff and
the general difficulty
of remote admin'ing
OS X sans Apple tools
make it less than ideal
for Soda.
My experience w/ linux
customers suggests that
linux works well in
certain environments
(single function
dedicated servers: ex.
technical computing,
db serving, &c.; desk-
tops) but its is not
very stable/secure for
a heavily used multi-
user system like soda.
Personally I think that
OpenSolaris would be
a better bet for soda.
Re FreeBSD - some
reasons I prefer it
to Linux are:
1. pf and altq -
much nicer than
anything in Linux.
(Yes I run OBSD
as well)
2. /usr/ports - much nicer than apt or rpm. But I like rebuilding
from src and excluding cruft in pkgs (I prefer dp to fink on
OS X for the same reason).
3. /usr/src - Don't have to hunt around for the src to a command/lib
function if you run into a prob. This is a big problem on Linux,
esp. w/ latest 64bit libc6, where it is hard to tell what all
patches RH, SuSE, Debian, &c. applied.
4. Rational development model - I hate having to read a bunch of email
lists to figure out how to fix X feature on kernel Y.
5. UFS + Softupdates vs. Ext3, XFS, JFS, &c. - My FreeBSD/OpenBSD
boxes suffer little/no file corruption on power related crashes,
while I've run into all sorts of problems on Linux systems w/
so-call journaling fs.
That said, I mostly work on Linux and it is okay. Mostly customers
That said, I mostly work on Linux and its okay. Mostly customers
like it b/c it is cheap and they can hire monkeys to maintain it or
just reinstall if something doesn't work. Many customers just plan
on wiping the OS every 2-3 mo and doing a clean install w/ latest
patches b/c it is too hard to figure out how to run a stable linux
system.
2. /usr/ports - much
nicer than apt or
rpm. But I like
rebuilding from
src and excluding
cruft in pkgs.
3. /usr/src - Don't
have to hunt around
for the src to a
command if you
run into a prob.
4. Rational development
I hate having to
read a bunch of
email lists to
figure out how to
fix X on kernel Y.
That said, I mostly
work on Linux and its
okay. Mostly customers
like it b/c it is
cheap and they can hire
monkeys to maintain it
or just reinstall if
something doesn't work.
Many customers just plan
on wiping the OS every
2-3 mo and doing a clean
install w/ latest patches
b/c it is too hard to
figure out how to run
a stable linux system.
\_ Why did you run MySQL on
Linux in this comparison?
Both databases are
availible on both
systems.
\- i didnt mean to compare
mysql and postgres ...
the ideal was linux and
freebsd packet capture
end up using different
amounts of cpu which has
consequences when other
things are running on the
system. so there are
weird cases where linux
will do better, but they
are artificial cases ...
like when your gigabit
capture box is and old
enough single proc box to
run out of cpu cycles.
in this case the fact that
linux uses less cpu in
some cases is not really a
virtue since you would be
a dumbass to run a db on
your pcap box.
Here is a typical linux
and freebsd story: a linux
advocate who is a medium
profile figure in the linux
community sent us a note
about linux getting <10%
packet drops on a high
use gigE link where we
were seeing freebsd drops
in the 15-25% range i
believe. he wasnt exactly
crowing but was trying to
convince us linux didnt
suck any more. this greatly
surprised us and we would
have been delighted if this
were the case. but then we
ran the test on a testbed
network with a hardware
packet generator [so we
knew exactly how many
packets had gone by and
the rate as well] and it
it really turned out linux
was misreporting the
number of dropped packets.
(btw, this was a few
cpu generations ago.
amusingly sunhardware
which cost 3-5x of the
PCs couldnt come close
to keeping up because of
the heavy user space
processing). most people
doing their home testing
dont have hardware traffic
generators and probably
would have left with the
impression linux was
better/faster.
BTW, if you want to see
more bitching about linux
(old linux) read the SOSP
paper on the google fs.
it's very much if the flavor
of my complaints. BTW, as a
condition of hiring rob pike
GOOG committed to going to
plan9. --psb
\_ Thanks for the
discussion, it's quite
interesting. I knew we
could get to this once
we got past trolling
and namecalling.
-dans |