Slashdot Mirror


SMP On OpenBSD, Coming Soon

Lord of the OpenBSD writes "At long last, SMP development on OpenBSD looks to be gearing up. One person is now doing full-time funded development on SMP. Project leader Theo de Raadt is now asking for funding for a second developer. Theo has announced that SMP support for i386 is planned for the OpenBSD 3.6 or 3.7 release, the first of which is due in 8 months."

11 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Re:smp? by Herbster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    oops. Because OpenBSD is focused on security. This means they don't compromise by spreading development effort that could be best spent on making the OS more secure.

  2. Why buy hamburger when the steak is free? by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can use NetBSD, FreeBSD or Linux -- all of which have SMP capabilities to varying degrees ... so, why do I want to give Theo $ for something he could probably port --instead of hiring a programmer to putz around with reinventing the wheel?

  3. Re:Yesterday's Technology, Tomorrow! by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course you guys realize the mission of OBSD is not tossing in every feature you can think of trying to keep up with the Gates', its something else altogether, thankfully.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  4. Re:Interesting... by Ryvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I feel safer knowing that the time that could have gone into optimization has gone into checking for bugs and other security enhancements (privsep, WorX, etc.) - OpenBSD isn't meant to be your main enterprise-level server. That's FreeBSD's job. OpenBSD is supposed to sit there at the gates and safely divide packets into sheep or goats all day long.

  5. Fantastic by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My dream system for security work would be a thin SMP OpenBSD environment with a Java runtime on it. That way there would be a solid, very security OS, with a sandboxed VM environment to run the server code, resulting in strong security at every level. I am looking forward to this. Now, if it can run KDE 3.2 and OOo 1.1 and Evolution, that is all I need in a desktop and development system. I've been using OpenBSD for years but I switched to Linux when it pulled ahead on desktop functionality, but maybe it's time to take another look at OpenBSD.

    --------
    Create a WAP server

  6. Is this necessary? by agent+dero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No this isn't a troll, I used Free and OpenBSD's; but why do we need this.

    I still haven't found a necessity for SMP OpenBSD yet, if I need a box to run X or anything else that would work the CPUs, i'd choose FreeBSD, just for the package system.

    What's really lagging in OpenBSD is an easy to use port/package system; SMP is long down the line.

    Anybody that uses OpenBSD like I do, please tell me why we need OpenBSD, I use it for security, not for dual/quad/etc processor servers.

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
  7. Re:DON'T FORGET ABOUT DARWIN by spoonboy42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, Darwin has SMP support that it inherited from the codebase of FreeBSD and Mach. And, to tell the truth, if you want a complete, modern *BSD system you might be better off with FreeBSD anyway (it has probably the most extensive ports collection, best SMP support, fastest scheduler, best desktop support, etc.). The reason for the "other" BSDs (OpenBSD and NetBSD) existing is to focus on goals that don't fit in with FreeBSD's general-purpose design or Apple's exclusive focus on the PowerPC desktop (i386 versions of Darwin notwithstanding). Specifically, OpenBSD is designed to be ultra-secure, while NetBSD's goal is to be portable across as many different architectures as possible. If OpenBSD gets a useful feature like SMP without sacrificing security, though, it's a *good thing* for people who deploy OpenBSD, as it gives them more hardware options in the future.

    --
    Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
    Andy Grove: "Not Much."
  8. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    have to admit that Theo doesn't play nice even with those NOT beneath him


    Ever play with a cat? You swat at its head a bit, it tries to bite back or swat back, roll it around, it scratches your hand, etc, etc, the same way one cat plays with another - the nibbles and scratches don't really hurt a fellow cat. Theo plays rough with people, has thick skin, and expects others to play as rough as he does (yes rough often == flame wars, etc). He plays rough with everyone, irregardless of how much work you do, though he does really respect those who do good work (he'll talk *very* highly of them).


    I don't much care for that attitude, but i also recognize that i am the same way with some people (at work, among co-workers, we hurl insults back and forth and call eachother on our fuck ups, but also respect eachother's work abilities and will say so when asked). Theo is just that much more consistent than i am.

  9. Re:Interesting... by bsdcow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    niels moved to netbsd where he works now but i believe most of his code will be ported to openbsd when required. theo seems to have been a bit harsh over niels and niels left. well, this is a business between niels and theo and we should not dwelve into it ;)

  10. Re:I Will Be Amazed If This Works by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe Theo sees that his view of SMP will be irrelevant when everyone has SMP hardware. It doesn't matter if lots of individual machines are better than SMP machines, when 6 years from now, a new $700 Wal-Mart PC has a $85 dual-core processor.

    The Pentium 4's hyperthreading feature already hints at this. And if you have this stuff anyway (even when you didn't ask for it) you might as well use it.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  11. Re:Risky to add SMP to free *nix by KrispyKringle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Aside from the arguments about superiority (FreeBSD versus Linux on Intel hardware, for example, is a bit of a tough one, though OpenBSD versus most Linuxes for security is not, and any BSD versus Linux for stability is pretty much not a competition, either), you seem a bit misguided about the BSD's.

    You assume that it is ego that's responsible for Theo to run the OpenBSD project (which as I said really does have a number of security features that Linux hasn't got--compare http://openbsd.org/errata.html to the track record of the Linux kernel alone). You seem to forget that the BSD's are distinct projects; Theo runs Open, but not Free or Net (or Darwin, or the number of commercial OSes that borrowed BSD code--OSX and Solaris, if I remember right, among likely others).

    Judging by that little misconception alone, I'm guessing you aren't a BSD user. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if you've ever even used a BSD (me, I'm both a Linux and a BSD person; posting from a Linux desktop, run Linux and Free and Open on servers, and my laptop is a nice new OSX powerbook). You might assume from the hype that Linux is technologically superior, but that is often not the case. The BSD's have their strengths and weeknesses, just as Linux does. Linux has momentum and publicity as a principle strength. But that doesn't mean it's always better (and truly, even if I've got PAX and SELinux or GRSec or similar on my Linux install, I still have to worry about reasonably frequent kernel vulnerabilities a bit more than I do with OpenBSD or even FreeBSD).