Re: Any serious production servers yet?

["Vlad GALU" <vladgalu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/4/06, Danial Thom <danial_thom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- Vlad GALU <vladgalu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 6/3/06, Danial Thom <danial_thom@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Matthew Dillon
> > <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >     I couldn't have put it better myself.
> > > >
> > > >     Vis-a-vie network performance, my goal
> > for
> > > > DragonFly is to have 'good'
> > > >     performance.  But I think it is a
> > complete
> > > > waste of time to try to
> > > >     squeeze every last erg out of the
> > network
> > > > subsystem like FreeBSD has.
> > > >     We aren't trying to compete with Cisco,
> > and
> > > > nobody in their right mind
> > > >     would take a turnkey BSD or linux-based
> > > > system over a Cisco (or other
> > > >     piece of high-end networking gear) to
> > route
> > > > multi-gigabits/sec of
> > > >     traffic.   I still think we can get
> > close
> > > > to FreeBSD's rated performance,
> > > >     eventually, but I am not willing to
> > create
> > > > a mess of hacks and crazy
> > > >     configuration options to turn DragonFly
> > > > into the ultimate ether switch
> > > >     when I can purchase one off the shelf
> > for a
> > > > few hundred bucks.
> > > >
> > > >     I think the last time I tried to use a
> > > > general purpose UNIX OS as an
> > > >     actual 'router' was in 1994.  We used
> > two
> > > > BSDi boxes (and later FreeBSD
> > > >     boxes) to route the two T1's that BEST
> > > > Internet had when we had just
> > > >     started up.  It was a horror, frankly.
> > > > Hardware bugs in the ethernet
> > > >     cards and even in the T1 card required
> > a
> > > > lot of hacking to work around,
> > > >     and trying to run BGP with gated was
> > even
> > > > worse.
> > > >
> > > >     Back then 'real' networking hardware
> > was
> > > > bulky and expensive.  Today,
> > > >     though, there is no excuse.  It's cheap
> > > > (and even cheaper on E-Bay),
> > > >     and far more reliable then a general
> > > > purpose PC.
> > > >
> > > >     If someone is trying to route
> > > > multi-gigabits worth of traffic then
> > > >     the infrastructure is clearly important
> > > > enough to warrent purchasing
> > > >     dedicated networking gear.  If someone
> > > > isn't trying to go all out,
> > > >     then a general purpose OS might be
> > > > adequate, if still not as reliable.
> > > >
> > > >     So all I can say to Mr Thom in that
> > regard
> > > > is: Stop trying to fit a
> > > >     square peg into a round hole and just
> > buy
> > > > the appropriate gear for your
> > > >     network infrastructure needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> >   -Matt
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your caveman-like views are as troubling as
> > they
> > > are entertaining. You seem to have no grasp
> > of
> > > the modern world and no understanding of
> > 'BSDs
> > > niche. Everything was buggy in '94, but with
> > you
> > > and clowns like Paul Borman trying to do
> > > networking, what the hell would you expect no
> > > matter what you had to work with?  :)))
> > >
> > > Many, many large network appliances (load
> > > balancers, bandwidth managers, firewalls,
> > > security filters) are based on linux or BSD.
> > The
> > > reason is that CISCOs and "mega-gigabit
> > routers"
> > > have no extra CPU power to do things like
> > > filtering and shaping at a very high level.
> > I've
> > > made myself many millons of $$ selling a few
> > > thousand network devices, which is more than
> > > you'll ever make having a really cool desktop
> > OS,
> > > even if its better than anything else out
> > there.
> > > Designing a product for fun is one thing, but
> > if
> > > you want to get funding you have to produce
> > > something that's useful for the corporate
> > world,
> > > not for a bunch of pimply-faced college kids.
> > The
> > > reality of the corporate world is that even
> > if
> > > DFLY is the best damned OS ever written, they
> > > will use windows or linux, because you can't
> > > staff a support center with DFLY experts. Its
> > > simply never going to happen. You can however
> > get
> > > in as a server platform, because only a
> > couple of
> > > guys have to know what they're doing.
> > >
> > > Unix as a desktop box is not even an
> > > afterthought. 'BSDs niche is as a network
> > server.
> > > Period.
> > >
> > > You might think its a waste of time to
> > optimize
> > > networking, but it seems to me you're wasting
> > > your time entirely if your goal is to be a
> > little
> > > faster than LINUX as a desktop box. Who
> > cares?
> > > FreeBSD with 1 processor is faster than linux
> > > with 2, but no-one used FreeBSD anyway.
> > Nobody
> > > wants to use 'BSD as a desktop machine,
> > except
> > > for a handful of people with a lot more time
> > on
> > > their hands than the rest of us. People want
> > to
> > > use 'BSD as network servers. People in the
> > real
> > > world that is. Maybe thats why your not with
> > > FreeBSD anymore; your refusal to modernize
> > your
> > > ideas to what's going on in the real world,
> > and
> > > your complete lack of understanding where the
> > > dollars are to fund your efforts?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >    I should probably be moving on the same
> > trend the other subscribers
> > follow and give you a very diplomatic pat on
> > the shoulder, but your
> > bluntness simply calls for more.
> >    Shouldn't you be out, making some millions ?
> > You seem to be better
> > at it than at implanting your ideas into other
> > people's minds.
> > Everything they do, and especially Matt, is
> > pro-bono. For fun. While
> > their idea of having fun consists of spending a
> > considerable amount of
> > hours each day writing code, yours seem to be
> > polishing your typing
> > skills. Do all of us and especially yourself a
> > favor and reconsider
> > your schedule.
> >
> > > DT
> >
>
> I don't see that you have any credibility at all,
> so why doesn a nobody like you even feel the need
> to talk at all?

  In hope that another nobody would reply :)

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com


--
If it's there, and you can see it, it's real.
If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual.
If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent.
If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it.