ziz a dumb question?
Gary Kline
kline at thought.org
Sat May 1 03:03:59 UTC 2010
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 04:19:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:57:08 -0700, Gary Kline <kline at thought.org> wrote:
> > i've never been anything near the extreme-green movement. i
> > figured that newer computers/cpus/etc would be more efficient
> > than what came before.
>
> Oh, you mean that a "modern" desktop PC consumes as much power
> as my old AS/400e with 10 hard disk drives - as loud a a common
> PC, 2 times as big and 4 times as heavy? :-)
>
Yeah, gee-whiz :)
>
>
> > right now, everybody is
> > racing for efficiency. not here yet.
>
> I would say "racing for efficiency" will start if people do
> recognize that in many settings, networked terminals are a
> much better solution than one full-featured "modern" PC per
> desk. At the moment, industry is just trying to sell "energy
> efficiency" to those who are interested in it, but they get
> the same crap as anybody else, but more expensive. :-)
>
i've thought about this for at Least ten years.... why not
have 4 CRT's or xterminals hanging off one very beefy
machine? but do they have anything with graphics and
keyboard + mouse that can work via one USB port/jack? i'm
sure my wasted cycles could be put to very good use. but it
would mean haning off a second display/kybd/mouse.
the ARM/A-9 chip looks great. its a RISC chip that is super
efficient. gang four A9's in one package:: low power and at
least 2GHZ .... the only drawback is that the a9 is only
32bits. So we cannot try to calcale the 7th root of
infinity, :-) i mean, come-on-people, get real. 4G of ram
ought to be Plenty!!
>
>
> > what i'm
> > wondering is:: how good is this "PC-BSD" at being a server? i
> > mean, if it's good at being a toy [to listen to A/V STreams and
> > other less-nerdy things], it probably can't be that solid on
> > handling DNS ... at least not as well as FreeBSD.
>
> Basically, it's still FreeBSD "under the hood", so you can
> run the basic services. Of course, you will have to install
> them in either of the "non-supported" ways (i. e. PBI packages
> usually won't be available for server-centered applications),
> via pkg_add or by ports.
>
> Because GUI operations vs. DNS workload won't be an issue
> in terms of resource consumption, you probably will be lucky.
> Serving web pages and maybe streams, and other "server stuff"
> will be possible, too. PC-BSD performs acceptably even under
> load.
>
i'm trying to// or i'm =thinking about= getting rid of my
pfSense machine. i used ifp for *yesrs* with no breakins.
So NOBODY got into my poetry!!
>
>
> > If anybody
> > onlist has messed around with PC-BSD for *server* stuff, i'd be
> > very interested in hearing about it.
>
> In any case, check ports and firewall. PC-BSD intends to make
> the experience to the user as comfortable as possible. This,
> sadly, means to abandon well intended means of security. So
> there may (!) be something that makes your machine interesting
> for attackers - allthough you don't participate in 99.998% of
> market share. :-)
according to my /var/log/<foo>.log files, the only crackins
were from kiddie-scripters. i squashed them.
>
> I've tested PC-BSD on some occiassions, but I never really
> used it for anything that would allow me to call it a server,
> so I can't be more specific.
>
>
thanks for your POV. any others? it may be that using
PC-BSD would mean that pfSense would be wise. i'm just tired
of having to use Linux for fun stuff, and it frequently
breaks, and relying on FreeBSD too.
>
>
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
--
Gary Kline kline at thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
The 7.83a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php
http://journey.thought.org 99 44/100% Guaranteed Novel
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list