OpenBSD AMD64 SMP in testing

agent dero writes "Naysayers beware, at the recent Calgary OpenBSD Hackathon, there has been some major improvements in OpenBSD's SMP support which was recently merged with -current. According to this recent article at undeadly.org the code is ready for testing, but the OpenBSD team could really use some permanent AMD64 SMP hardware for testing. Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds."

Comments

Re:really?

[some_other_nerd]

It's dead? What will happen when Joe 6.pkg uses Linux and all of us geeks need a new 'underdog' OS to use?

Once Linux gains (some) popularity, the geeks will most likely move on to HURD, OpenBeOS, and *BSD.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds.

Imagine a distributed kernel compile with distcc. Or perhaps a beowulf cluster compile? Or is that only a Linux thing?

Re:Interesting

[noselasd]

Well, you only need a 32way pSeries p690 to compile the linux kernel in 4.8 seconds. Nothing fancy like beowulf or distcc needed.

Re:Interesting

[justins]

A p690 is MUCH fancier than a beowulf cluster, and more technologically advanced in just about every way.

Re:Interesting

[Brandybuck]

Or is that only a Linux thing?

No, distcc and clusters work with BSDs, and most other operating systems, too.

Good for us

[vijaya_chandra]

"Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds."

Hope that such compile times on the developers' systems would result in kernels that wouldn't need a recompilation/replacement for years on systems in production

Re:Good for us

[Shanep]

Nothing, once the kernel is _built_ to your needs on an OpenBSD machine, you _really_ don't need to recompile it, ever.

Or, looking at it another way, if you are a user tracking -stable, so as to stay up-to-date with security and stability patches, you should be recompiling the OpenBSD kernel (and then some) a lot more often than never.

Re:Good for us

[tigga]

Nothing, once the kernel is _built_ to your needs on an OpenBSD machine, you _really_ don't need to recompile it, ever.

Maybe from security point of view... And if that box performs just one function or two you don't need to touch it. But adding new devices and features may need it. And bugs lurk there as well.

Re:BSD is one dead bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news, everyone!
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article, Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
You can read more about FreeBSD here

If you would like to try out a BSD, you can download: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD
Enjoy!

Re:really?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No, no, no. *BSD isn't dead, it's just dying -- it's official, Netcraft has been confirming it for about ten years. And PC Week has already told us that Apple is dead -- they're closely tied because Apple uses a BSD user space on top of a Mach kernel.

Posted on Mozilla on FreeBSD 5.2--a dead browser on a dead OS. Dead on.

Re:BSD is one dead bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:
DragonflyBSD ekkoBSD PicoBSD

Enjoy :)

80 seconds, eh?

[F2F]

Well, here in Plan 9-land we get our kernels compiled for 8 seconds (Theo himself admits our compilers are blazingly fast):

plan9% time mk 'CONF=pccpu' > /dev/null
3.44u 3.26s 8.85r mk CONF=pccpu
plan9% ls -l 9pccpu
--rwxrwxr-x M 106460 andrey andrey 1554980 Jun 27 13:23 9pccpu
plan9%

andrey

Re: You forgot

[Nimrangul]

I agree, Dillon looks to be making serious work and serious progress with DragonFly, whereas Micro, Mir, ekko and Pico all appear to be goalless, understaffed and the staff they have do not seem to be as talented as the likes of Dillon or de Raadt.

The way I see it there are still going to be only three major BSDs though:

FreeBSD, the way I see it at least, will eventually be an ix86/amd64 only system with everything Linux does in it as well. Definately good for cheapservers right now, headed more for the desktops and laptops.

DragonFlyBSD, as ever as I see it, takes the servers. The direction they are heading in is likely to be some damned good SMP, something that would be great for a server.

OpenBSD, still how I see it, will continue expanding into the trenches of ISP warfare. They're solid and perform well, they are soon going to be able to completely replace a Cisco and they are devoted to making the system as secure as possible.

Now, what of NetBSD you say? I say that they are slowly loosing appeal, many of their supporters call Net equally as secure as Open, but it's not. The system runs on damned near everything, but why? Who is running a Dreamcast or Atari? Any significant platforms supported by Net can be ported to Open. I think that Net will eventually die out, gloomy as it is, the goal of being on every platform is hardly a thing to unite a project in my mind. Though, as I've said a few times as a chant against flamming, that is just my opinion.

Re: You forgot

[chaos_echo]

I agree, Dillon looks to be making serious work and serious progress with DragonFly, whereas Micro, Mir, ekko and Pico all appear to be goalless, understaffed and the staff they have do not seem to be as talented as the likes of Dillon or de Raadt.

There aren't many people in any community who can claim to be as dedicated and talented at Matt Dillon or Theo de Raadt, and understaffing is a problem that I know the ekkoBSD and MirOS teams would like to solve.

... I think that Net will eventually die out, gloomy as it is, the goal of being on every platform is hardly a thing to unite a project in my mind. Though, as I've said a few times as a chant against flamming, that is just my opinion.

That opinion isn't uncommon, but there are a notable number of people who appreciate NetBSD because of their attention to architectural and technical detail. I think NetBSD will last for a long time to come. As you disclaimed, this is all IMHO