30 Nov
2003
30 Nov
'03
12:57 a.m.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:34:42AM -0500, Brian Chase wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Yes, he was also rather enthusiastic about NetBSDs response. My
limitation was "on x86" - one of the (unstated) reasons being that, if
necessary, one can run Linux binaries using the Linux emulation of
FreeBSD (comes in handy for running commercial/non-free binary only
stuff for Linux). If the platform limitation is lifted to "must be able
to differentiate ones from zeros", my favourite *BSD would be NetBSD,
because it runs on such a wide range of plattforms, has a very small
footprint and a nicely consistent admin interface.
But on x86 I would most likely try FreeBSD first.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Well, according to
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ if you want to run
*BSD on x86, it should be FreeBSD.
Did you see the news item referenced at the top of that web page?
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/#netbsd2
-> [Nov 1 2003] I got an email suggesting that I re-check NetBSD. The
-> results are nothing short of astonishing. In two weeks time the
-> NetBSD team made dramatic improvements.
->
-> * socket: previously O(n), now O(1).
-> * bind: greatly improved, but still O(n). Much less steep, though.
-> * fork: a modest O(n) for dynamically linked programs, O(1) for
-> statically linked.
-> * mmap: a bad O(n) before, now O(1) with a small O(n) shadow.
-> * touch after mmap: a bad strange graph in 1.6.1, a modest O(n) a
-> week ago, now O(1).
-> * http request latency: previously O(n), now O(1).
->
-> Congratulations, NetBSD! NetBSD now has better scalability than
-> FreeBSD.