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."
And where do I sign up?
frizsistitt PSO0000t w0w0w0w0w0w0000t! 1
...multiple processors support OpenBSD.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
1st post
..is that I can never decide to buy a CD set because everytime I think wait one release, the next one will have new feature xxx included!! (Where xxx is some new pf feature, or systrace, or SMP, or....
am I the only one that's surprised that it didn't have this before?
OpenBSD up till now didn't have SMP support?
In related news, the Egyptians are on the cusp of discovering Construction, which will allow them to build Aqueduct and Coliseum. However, this is not expected to improve the odds of their feared Chariot against invading Mechanized Infantry.
I don't mean to be insightful, but Windows has had SMP support since NT4 That was ages ago. BSD is always going to be 10 years behing windows.
in russia, smp supports you!
Competition in America: If you can't beat 'em, Sue 'em!
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.
Why isn't this posted in the BeOS section? I'll try the Soviet Russia Slashdot.
But most other OS have had it for a while now. Why has BSD taken so long?
And it makes for a good research project as well.
But I ask here, as an honest interested person, why one would wait until SMP is correctly and efficiently implemented into OpenBSD when they could simply use any old recent version of Windows or Linux on SMP hardware to get symmetric multiprocessor support for a high-load server?
I understand that Research -> Products -> Corporate $$$, but is this perhaps too little too late for OpenBSD?
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
They can increase their userbase to (hopefully) include some of the larger companies and corporations that opt to use FreeBSD because of it's SMP support and greater performance than OpenBSD. Hopefully, this modification will also include some performance modifications so it can also compete speedwise with FreeBSD.
While security takes precedence over performance in my book, there are definitely some things that need the performance of FreeBSD.
This is one feature i've been looking forward to playing with (not NEEDING) for a while, i can't wait to try it when it's available somewhere.
--Fuzz
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?"
Sweet now I can have more than one fish in the box.
The human condition is to not accept the human condition.
Now that's respect.
The parent comment was posted 10 minutes ago, and every other comment in this thread has been moderated. But the parent post, an obvious -1, Offtopic, has yet to be modded as such.
Fear this ekrout fellow, as he's got quite a following.
The BSD that is always behind, and unsecure, they even admit their security hole PROUDLY on their homepage. Sorry, this is NOT FLAMEBAIT or troll, it is the TRUTH.
The last time I spoke to Theo in person, he wasn't too keen on SMP. That wasn't too long ago.
SMP tanks roll over YOU!
The University of Waterloo, eh? Well, knowing them, the versions of OpenBSD with SMP support will require a Windows XP activation key...
Or maybe they figured out a way to port OpenBSd to Windows. Or something. Waterloo?
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
We want the option of SMP on SUN kit as well. Seriously SMP is well needed seeing as most OpenBSD box's are yesterdays coperate kit. Also given intels SMP on a chip play along with Power4 dual cores on the market now that by the time they make it into your average geeks home SMP should be stable.
Open Bitch-Smacking Douche! Yeeeah-fucknutz!
Thank you,
Cunty McFucktwat
Microsoft has been raiding the University of Waterloo for programmers for years now.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Those who don't use Linux are doomed to reimplement it... again.
He's a fag, too.
God hates fags.
However, the crack about ipv6 is stupid. OpenBSD has had a working ipv6 stack for a long time (they were first OS to ship with an IPsec stack at all). Get your facts straight.
Yes... I suppose it IS a troll...
I've been using OpenBSD in several mission critical networking roles for 3 years now, and I can safely say that I haven't needed SMP.
The conventional wisdom that an operating system should be judged according to it's bells and whistles is what's wrong with the software industry. An OS should be judged by two things: Does it do the job I require of it, and does it do it well?
There are many many jobs that do not require SMP. There are many many jobs being done on SMP boxes that do not require SMP. As the price of processors has diminished, SMP is just a cool thing to buy. I'd be willing to put money down saying that 75% of the SMP boxes out there aren't needed (if that was measurable).
So, if you want to judge your OS based on features you don't need, then go for it. I use OpenBSD because it is the best choice for that particular need. If you want to assume that one OS is the Uber-OS because of the back panel of the box, then go for it. I'll assume a particular OS is best for the task at hand, and go with that.
I'm not part of the OpenBSD project (nor do I play one on TV), but one of the central points behind it is that they don't put in things unless they are needed. So far it doesn't seem like SMP has been justified in the great scheme of things (no surprise given the actual need in the wild). I'd much rather have them working on things I'm going to be using instead of evaluating other products based on things I won't.
God loves fags
Man who spin locks safe cracker.
You mean Civilization.
Suck it, Trebek!
Did anyone else notice that these four students are using PowerBooks (I assume running OS X). Check out this picture. You also have to love the reference to the cult movie Hackers.
From MPlayer HQ We've began preparations for the real release: this pre-release is the RC1. There are quite some features about it which make it the player supporting all modern codecs of the world today. No other player can boast with support for all of RealAudio/Video 9, Windows Media Audio/Video 9, Quicktime Sorenson 3, QDesign Music Audio. This is a peak improvement, and I'm not talking PR now. I'm watching TV with MPlayer even now. I could do so even on my EGA or Hercules display. Quite touching isn't it.
I see tons of negativity from the clueless as usual. *sigh*
:P)
Hey, people? Do you know how many people *don't* need SMP, as opposed to those who do? Did you ever think that, given the number of SMP-supporting *nixes out there, OpenBSD felt like concentrating on more important things (like security) first?
Yeah.
Congrats, OpenBSD! (Still the only operating system to pit Daemonettes against Catgirls in pits of pudding! Hehehe. Get it? Daemonettes? Catgirls? Script Kitties? HEHEHEHEHE. Sorry.
I think its great as a school project, but that seems to be all that it is. It would be great if others gave a helping hand, and made sure the project gets "finished"(mostly working anyways) "These guys have an interesting 4th year project for CE" would be more better, or at least repel more Trolls
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
OpenBSD is a very promising OS, and SMP support will finally let it play with the big boys in the free *nix playground :)
"two things: Does it do the job I require of it, and does it do it well?" In every engineering project there's cost. You can choose two of the three: Better, Faster, Cheaper. You may have forgotten this, but the accountants won't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
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.
Which of the popular applications and uses of OpenBSD would benefit from SMP support?
How many posts have we seen about the worthless Linux homosexuals who are prowling our hallowed Halls of Slashdot ever since the pathetic VA Software ordered Slashdot to include an Apple section in the vain hope that this would up their revenue flow?
When on earth are the Slashdot founders going to grow some BALLS and tell VA Software, or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days, to go POUND SAND!
VA Software is WORTHLESS and they're bringing slashdot to its knees. And Fag-intosh users are also WORTHLESS and they're dropping to THEIR knees to suck Steve "I did *not* steal *BSD, it was FREE, jackass!" Jobs' minute dick.
Attention all Linux users: you are worthless. You stupid computers are worthless. Please commit suicide at your earliest opportunity!
--about time. Before I just didn't understand. I keep reading about open bsd being a server distro, very secure. Well, duh, servers are where you see multiple processors more than cheap(er) desktops. and if all it is is to be some sort of minimum home brewed gateway router thing, they can stop now, it's "done", go on to some other project.
All in all, though, I'd say adding multiple processor support is a good thing. I wish them well, and perhaps I'll try it someday once this is more stable.
and have the open source zealots tell you you can't even own your own code. Fuck you in your flea-ridden ass, RMS!
It's strange how things like this end up changing would would have been. Do it right the first time, because if it gets adopted, and it wasn't done right, efforts will be diluted.
I'm glad to see it's happening though. At least somebody's throwing some brainpower at it rather than waiting around for Theo & friends. (no fault to Theo, I know SMP is "in the works" - OpenBSD is secure, first and foremost. That's what I, and many others, care about most. Kudos to you and your team on this! You have a highly-regarded, ultra secure OS that has kept many cracker-types and script-kiddies at bay for many years. You have saved many people many thousands or millions of dollars with the protection your software project has provided. You have given nothing to the headache medicine providers of the IT industry.)
One more processor for my dual-capable Sun SS20 and I'll have a grand-ole time playing with this. Just too bad it comes with only a single 10-speed ethernet port. Anybody know about S-bus fast ethernet cards?
To these brave deveopers: Way to go! Thanks for getting the ball rolling and best of luck with your project (and dealing with the publicity! :)
Sure its cool and isnt a bad thing, but for the target market that OBSD has, is SMP really *that* important?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Kernel spinlocks you!
Ok, it's oversimplification time. As I understand it, the three main flavors of BSD and their foci are:
Free - Well-rounded BSD for popular architectures.
Open - Ultrasecure BSD for many architectures. Lots of code auditing, but always just behind Free in some area or another.
Net - Runs everywhere. Won't be done until it runs on toasters and wristwatches.
I have much less experience with the BSDs than I do with the various GNU/Linux distros, so I hope someone will answer my question rather than flame in response. I've long been an advocate of reducing the number of different and nearly equal (in functionality) ways to do the same thing, regarding what I would call redundant software projects. In my view, the necessity of competition in a market for physical goods (the need to keep costs down and quality up by preventing monopolies) does not exist with OSS. If a company producing OSS decides to raise prices or slow development or include unpopular features, anyone else is free to keep using older versions at the very least or fork the project and continue development with positive goals at best. With the necessity for competition removed, a market containing multiple, redundant, competing (for mind share) OSS projects is inferior to a market containing a single, popular OSS project that satisfies a specific need. Incompatibilites crop up. The support base is divided. Developer time is divided. Skills must be learned twice. I would greatly prefer a single desktop environment (and widget set and cut 'n' paste mechanism) over the current situation. In Erpo's-the-emperor land, there is only one gnu/linux distro.
Remember, these are just my opinions.
My question is this: while there are a number of idealogical, license-, or ego-related reasons why maintainers of gnu/linux distros (or desktop environments, or whatever) would resist a merging of sofware or elimination of obviously inferior options (obviously inferior in the "there's 1001 gnutella clients and 99% of them suck" sense), is there the same kind of resistance in the BSD community to merging all three main flavors?
Please take note that this announcement didn't come from OpenBSD.org. The guys doing it as just doing it as their own project (which is neat). One of the main reasons people enjoy OpenBSD is that it's code has been audited by Theo and his folks and prepared to be the most security oriented distro around.
http://www.remix.net/
Hmmmm....last I heard it was something like "Only multiple remote kernel holes in the default install, in more than 7 years!"
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?)
I thought BSD was dead? :/
I find it funny that all of these wonderful features are being added to a system that won't boot beyond 8G.
I've been having my own personal hell getting grub or lilo to boot this system on a second HD. My only success so far is to use the entire disk and then chainload it. Suggestions are welcome.
This would be an extension of that... one version of unix reimplementing something that is already in linux.
but it fact it turns out that it has never grown up!
This is so funny. No SMP support. LOL.
But linux has already done both of those! Get a new goal!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
YOU FAIL IT!
I'm probably going to get modded down for this, but it's got to be said (and this is from experience; it's not mindless cheerleading) --
This isn't the best use of OpenBSD developer time, if what they want is a better OpenBSD. Despite its good (but not perfect) security track record, this is an operating system that is riddled with mysterious problems when it comes to Unix compatibility.
I've got a bunch of source code that builds and runs fine on FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and a bunch of other Unices, but OpenBSD introduces reliability problems and some serious performance problems. (The same computer processes the same data with the same program at about 20% of the speed of Linux.)
SMP is a nice thing to have, but before OpenBSD can really be seriously considered for production use on any but the most trivial tasks, the reliability and performance issues need to be ironed out first.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:11:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Richy Kim
To: Will Ellis-Adams
Cc: smp@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: spinlocks
ay papi,
I can speak for most of the group that our intentions were never as lofty as they appear on deadly or slashdot.
This is a 4th year design project. It was an opportunity to couple our academics requirements and our personal interests. But the goal, first and foremost, is to graduate -- on time.
Getting our code merged back is a trifling priority, if even.
And unfortunately, as academic projects go, we're restricted in contributors outside our group.
But thanks for encouragement, we will keep in touch with the list as we progress.
-richy kim
Someone please tell me where it says on the goals page that SMP is a high priority? .. there can be no question as to the obvious reality for the official distribution in the forseeable future;-)
When you do security as a priority, fancy features that support threaded (read complex and untrustable from a security perspective) applications just don't quite get a front seat.
I do wish those dudes the best of successes, perhaps it will get merged in after the posix realtime extensions from rtmx, in the best case.
I sympathize with many who think they want SMP, but when the choice is security, stability, SMP, pick two
Todd Fries
Pick ONE.
Different approaches, different world views. It's hard to tell which is better (and why) *after* it's been done, much less *before* it's been done.
I don't think the duplication of effort is all that wasteful. Image the state of Linux and FreeBSD security if OpenBSD did not exist.
I broke in and deleted /usr
.....
hahahahahaha
no wait
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OpenBFD.
PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
SMP is not a server requirement, at least not for file/web/data servers. There the primary requirement is fast I/O (disk, network). Compute servers would be an exception.
I submit you're more likely to find SMP in the workstation of someone doing heavy duty crunching (image editing, PCB layout, simulations).
As OpenBSD is already the most secure OS available, it's no wonder that we have some of the top scientists in Canada working on bringing in SMP support. We would have taken a ton of code from FreeBSD, but we believe that their upcoming implementation is inferior to what we could come up with on our own. Besides, there's no telling what kind of glaring security holes there could be in FreeBSD's SMP implementation.
--
Theo DeRaadt
Founder, OpenBSD project.