FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:21 PM
> To: Adrian Chadd
> Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
>
>
> On 01/03/2008, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 01/03/2008, Chris <chrcoluk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You working round what I just said.  A nic should perform equally well
> > >  as it does in other operating systems just because its
> cheaper its not
> > >  an excuse for buggy performance.  There is also other good network
> > >  cards apart from intel pro 1000.  I am talking about stability not
> > >  performance, I expect a intel pro 1000 to outperform a
> realtek however
> > >  I expect both to be stable in terms of connectivity.  I expect a
> > >  realtek in freebsd to perform as well as a realtek in windows and
> > >  linux. :)
> >
> > Patches please!
> >
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adrian Chadd - adrian at freebsd.org
> >
>
> Ironically the latest server I got last night has a intel pro
> 1000 a rarity :)
>
> I am just giving feedback as when I speak to people in the datacentre
> and hosting business the biggest gripe with freebsd is hardware
> compatability, as I adore freebsd I ignore this and work round it but
> its defenitly reducing take up.
>
> Of course I know current re issues are getting attention which I am
> thankful for, I fully understand the time and effort required to write
> drivers patches etc. and have got no critisicms for the people who do
> this my complaint is more focused on people claiming there is no
> issues its just the hardware.
>

There aren't issues on hardware that is compatible.

You can't run MacOS X on an off-the-shelf PC and nobody
complains about it.  You can't run Solaris for the Sparc
on an Intel box but nobody complains about it.  FreeBSD
is not Java, it is not "write once, run anywhere"

If there is any problem with FreeBSD in this respect is that
it supports the poor hardware AT ALL.  Of course, we can't
do much about that - a code contributor who gets access
to CVS can put anything they want into the FreeBSD source,
and drivers are a particular problem - since few developers
are going to have duplicates of the hardware, only the
contributing developer really knows if his driver is solid
or not.

Arguably it might be better to drop support for poor hardware,
then the people who had such hardware would not be tempted
to run FreeBSD - thereby having a bad experience with it,
and blaming FreeBSD about it.

I challenge you to find an example of very high quality
hardware that has a driver in FreeBSD that has a lot of
problems.  Yet, you can find a lot of poor quality hardware
that has a FreeBSD driver with a lot of problems.  That
should tell you something - that the issue for the poor
hardware really is "just the hardware"

The people complaining about hardware compatibility need
to pull their heads out.  If they are buying brand new systems
they are utter fools if they don't check out in advance
what works and what doesen't.  It's not like there's a
shortage of experienced people on this list who could
tell them what to buy.  And if after the fact they find out
their shiny new PC won't run FreeBSD - then they take it
back to the retailer and exchange it for a different model.
Why is this so difficult?

My beef with the DNS tests was that ISC ran out and bought
the hardware FIRST, -then- they started testing.  This is
directly contrary to every bit of advice ever given in
the computer industry for the last 50 years - you select
the software FIRST, -then- you buy the hardware that runs it.
In short, it said far more about the incompetence of the
testers than the shortcomings of the software.

The people who have USED systems who are bitching about
FreeBSD not being compatible with their stuff need to
get over it.  OK, so they didn't get a chance to select
the hardware, they are using some retired Windows box
that won't run the new version of Windows.  So they come
here and our stuff has a problem with some hardware
part.  Well, OK fine - how does this hurt them?  Their
old computer wasn't usable for Windows anymore, now was it?
In short, their computer at that point was worthless - and
why is it OUR responsibility to make our stuff compatible
with their old computer?  How does us being incompatible
take anything away from them - their computer was scrap
anyway.  If there's a problem, well they can go
to the computer junkyard and exchange their scrap computer
for a different old scrap computer that has compatible
parts.

Ted