Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD SMP In The Works
Cajal writes "Four students at the University of Waterloo are working to add SMP support to OpenBSD as part of the Spinlocks project. More information is available in a story
at the OpenBSD Journal's site. They expect to have an initial working MP kernel in January."
...multiple processors support OpenBSD.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
it's almost time to go home from work and all I can do is troll /. with lame beowulf comments.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Imagine a single box running like a beowulf cluster!
Imagine if Imagine entertainment used OpenBSD
Ok, I'll shut up now.
But most other OS have had it for a while now. Why has BSD taken so long?
Congratulations to the OpenBSD folks for finally joining the 20th century. I will soon be able to run OpenBSD on my dual-CPU 486 server from 1992.
Next year, I hear they'll have something new called "ipv6".
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Open Bitch-Smacking Douche! Yeeeah-fucknutz!
Thank you,
Cunty McFucktwat
For starters: Mod the parent down, chumps. It's a travesty only partially excused by the hilarity of the oversight of SMP being left out of OpenBSD all these years. Now that we've all had our good chuckle, let's get our heads back in their right place and stop this karma circle jerk.
Now I know what you slashtards are thinking: "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about." But, let me tell you this. I've made significant contributions to several BSD-related projects, as well as contributing a patch or two to the FreeBSD kernels a few years back. So, I know what I am talking about. I repeat, this is NOT anecdotal evidence.
Of course, let me clarify the topic. OpenBSD isn't much slower than any of the *BSD flavors really, when it comes to performance. But I'm referring to the mindset of the development, not the performance of the kernel. First of all, Theo de Raadt is a dirty, dirty Canadian. Remembering this is paramount in reading the rest of my discussion. I didn't want to gloss this fact over. It's a crucial point in my argument, so write it down if you must, but please remember it.
Now that you have that etched in your brain, let's take a look at the proposed solution to enhance this kernel. The people working on it are from the University of Waterloo. Now, I know a lot of you little slashpeons out there may not know where that is, but I've seen the @uwaterloo.ca email address enough in my dealings with other people to know that it's in .ca and I'm told that that means Canada. Talk about your step in the wrong direction. The very essence of the sluggish design going into OpenBSD is retarded further by inbreeding the stupidity of Canada into the fruition of this product. It's the worst kind of nepotism - the one where no one wins and EVERYONE loses.
Now, to bring this whole argument to a close, we need to remind ourselves of one simple fact. Canadians are dumb. This has been scientifically proven. This step will only make the OpenBSD community lag behind even further. Thank you, and have a good day.
and have the open source zealots tell you you can't even own your own code. Fuck you in your flea-ridden ass, RMS!
Well fsck Theo, then. Seriously, you'd never run into this in Linux, because Linux has multiple working journaling filesystems - no need to fsck.
Wait, did I just troll?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
OpenBSD needs SMP support. Theo, Todd, and the rest of the gang have done an excellent job, but virtually any reasonable non-Intel machine these days is an SMP based system. As well as the potential security and stability enhancements (imagine two processes seperated not merely by an MMU, but by not even being run on the same processor) and speed improvements (anyone who's run SSH on their 40MHz Sun Sparcstation firewalls knows the more raw CPU power thrown at OpenBSD, the better, and knows it's less likely insecure systems like rlogin and rsh will be used in their place out of raw necessity), SMP may well allow forms of security that haven't existed before - admins able to lock down processes in to specific CPUs, etc.
This will not happen by itself. Resources need to be devoted to implementing such functionality, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman [house.gov] or senator [senate.gov]. Tell them OpenBSD is important to you. Tell them that without OpenBSD, you would have to find less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on his or her policy on OpenBSD.
You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
but it fact it turns out that it has never grown up!
This is so funny. No SMP support. LOL.