Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel using FreeBSD

Nik posted more than 13 years ago | from the Capital-F-damnit dept.

Intel 218

From Wes Peters, via DaemonNews. Intel's InBusiness Storage Station is a network file server in-a-box. Intel, despite their investment in Linux companies, is using FreeBSD as their OS of choice, as they are now stating. Of particular interest is their Mean Time Between Failure, 77,244 hours, or a shade under 9 years. That's probably a little on the low side, but quite respectable nonetheless.

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

MTBF (1)

Mr Donkey (83304) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458300)

"The Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is 77,244 hrs."

How did they come up with that morsel of stability,.That's about 9 years. So ... this thing has been tested for 9 years. Definitely not!!!

Wholly hot momma! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458301)

Time for a BSD song.


It's cleaner. It's nicer. It's BSD!
It's thoughtful. It's laid out. It's BSD!


INTEL YAHOO INTEL YAHOO INTEL YAHOO CDROM.COM!


Better license. Better coding. It's BSD!
Better behaved. Better security. It's BSD!


INTEL YAHOO INTEL YAHOO INTEL YAHOO CDROM.COM!



It's BSD! It's Open Source! It's Logical!
It's FREE! It's YOURS! Get it today!


How do they figure that? (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458302)

I find it hard to believe that they have some 286en sitting around running commodity hard drives, and that they haven't had the cord kicked, or a drive fail, or a fan overheat in nine years.

Don't get me wrong; I use FreeBSD at home, and I love it. I just think this might be a bit exaggerated.

wow (1)

RodStewart (13476) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458303)

any computer you have to upgrade the hardware before you have to reboot is cool. how is freebsd's perfomance compared to linux? oh , and, can i run gnome or kde on it?

thanks a bunch

Why is this strange? (1)

BranMan (29917) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458304)

Sorry guys, but this should be strange to no one - despite their investment in Linux, BSD has the widely acknowleged claim as the most secure OS out of the box. Jeez, if I were building server boxes you aren't intended to have to bring down for years, BSD is *the* obvious choice.

MTBF & OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458305)

What does the MTBF have to do with the OS? Obviously, when they are talking about a MTBF of 9 years, they are talking about the hardware. Most likely the hard drives.

Aaaaaaaaahhhh!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458306)

Run for your lives! It's flamewar time!

Linux or FreeBSD (1)

toofast (20646) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458307)

I've used both Linux and FreeBSD on all kinds of machines, and I'm still wondering what the compelling reason to use either operating system is. Both are lighning fast, rock solid, easy to upgrade and maintain, and both are free.

Re:wow (1)

howardjp (5458) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458308)

Performace is faster, I have noticed many improvements in both stability and speed since switching. Also, nearly any UNIX application will run without problems under FreeBSD.

MTBF is a misleading stat... (2)

epaulson (7983) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458309)

MTBF does not mean how long can it go for without crashing - it means that in a population of 77,244
one will fail every hour.

Why does it matter that they use BSD? (2)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458310)

Linux and BSD will both continue to have their place in the time to come; it is NOT, in my opinion, constructive to highlight the use of one OS over the other as an issue.
The only thing that interests me in that story is the fact that they chose a FREE OS over a commercial one.
This should be told as yet another solid victory for Open Source!

Re:How do they figure that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458311)

My guess is that this is either some sort of estimate or the sum MTBF over various machines.

How they figure it out (3)

BitPoet (40070) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458312)

A year has approximately 9000 hours in it
To get mean uptimes of ~77,000, simply run, for example, 9 computers for a year. One should crash once.

There are a lot more than 9 computers in the world running -BSD, so you could take a sample on the number of computers running -BSD, and the number of times those computers had to reboot in, say a month. In 31 days, there are 744 hours. To get a total uptime of ~77,000 hours, simply run 1000 computers all month.

Given, you'd need more than just this to get an average mean uptime, but you get the idea.

Of course, I could be wrong.

BitPoet

Not surprising (1)

Jonas ÷berg (19456) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458313)

I don't find this very surprising. What I've seen of the various BSD flavours has been very positive for me. They are still lacking kernel drivers that I would like to see, but I would like to use BSD more.

Let's have more integration between *BSD and Linux (2)

trance9 (10504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458314)

FreeBSD is an exceptionally stable server platform. It generally demands a lot more from the admin than Linux, but in the hands of a competent admin it's solid as a rock. I'm not surprised they're using it. Also worth nothing that the BSD license allows them to take it proprietary, whereas with Linux it would have to stay opensource.

I'd like to see more integration between the FreeBSD and Linux developers. FreeBSD has a purity and focus not found in Linux; whereas Linux has much better documentation and support, and as a result is much easier to use.

It's important to make sure the Unix market doesn't get fragmented. Linux and *BSD developers should co-operate to ensure that they implement common features in a standard way. For example, the high grade NFS stuff (caching, etc.) should be compatible between Linux and *BSD so that you can run a Linux client with a BSD server, or the other way around.

Competition between the different free Unixes is good, so long as it doesn't give MSFT or someone else a wedge to drive between the communities. When two Unixes become incompatible, each loses access to all the developers in the other camp.

No big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458315)

Looks like Cisco investment strategy to me: bet on every significant figure in the industry and you'll never loose. Not everyone can afford AIX and want to bother with Linux maintenance. Why not offer a BSD support counting that OS cost is 0?

Re:wow (1)

atdot (44919) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458316)

Asking how the performance is as compared to Linux (pick one, there is only 75) is going to make people go crazy...... but personally, ........ BSD is almost as fast as Linux (again, pick one) but 10 times more stable. And yes, you can run Xfree86 (including Gnome, KDE, E, whatever else you want, on it.

heh... It's free give it a shot, if you like Unix, you may end up liking it more than Linux.

just a thought....


@.

This article description is very misleading. (4)

cpeterso (19082) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458317)

Intel, despite their investment in Linux companies, is using FreeBSD as their OS of choice, as they are now stating.

They do not have an "OS of choice". Intel wants is OS agnostic. They don't care which OS you run, as long as it runs on Intel hardware. Intel probably used FreeBSD for this "file server applicance" because of the BSD license, which is favorable to companies that would like to borrow BSD code for closed, commercial products.

their Mean Time Between Failure, 77,244 hours, or a shade under 9 years.

When Intel quotes a MTBF of 9 years, they are talking about the hardware, most likely the hard disks. They are not talking about FreeBSD.



Hehe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458318)

man you really need to get your head checked. :)

Re:MTBF (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458319)

You don't need to test for nine (or whatever) years: you just have to test enough of them over a shorter period of time.

An example: if you test 1,000 devices for a day and three of them crash, then the MTBF is probably around 1,000/3 days i.e. a year.

Note: This example is a gross over-simplification! Please have a look at any decent statistics textbook for the correct details. I hope you get the idea anyhow.

Re:How do they figure that? (1)

Xenu (21845) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458320)

Most of these MTBF numbers are based on the failure rate in the middle part of the reliability curve, in between "infant mortality" and "wearout". A 9 year MTBF does not mean that the device will last 9 years, it means if you had 108 (9*12) devices, you would average 1 failure per month.

could it be they like the BSD license better? (3)

poopie (35416) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458321)

/me picks up dead horse
/me beats hose

Why would INTEL choose FreeBSD when Linux has all of the (deserved or not) hype, momentum, and business interest?

To answer that question, get a room full of lawyers for computer company legal departments together and have them read the GPL.

.. ask them if they'd like their company's product to be involved with the GPL license.

I understand the GPL. You understand the GPL. Maybe 95+% of slashdot readers understand the GPL, but do you think that corporate lawyers for tech companies who make their money from intellectual property protection are eager to get involved with anything that might require disclosure of their intellectual property?

I'm betting that many companies have official policies (enforced or not) against opensource software due in part to fear of the GPL.

so... the decision comes down to linux+gpl_potential_legal_worries or *BSD+100%_FREE_No_strings_attached .

And the legal department chooses which one??

__
Despite how we try to ignore them, facts take their toll.

Re:How do they figure that? (3)

twit (60210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458322)

You figure it by running a large sample for a short period of time, and then extrapolating the mean time according to a standard distribution.

Translation from statistician: you expect failures to follow a normal distribution, or bell curve. Let's say you run a thousand machines for a month or two as part of your testing. Even with a very long MTBF, you'll have a couple of failures.

You can also use component failure data to figure this out (what's the MTBF of the motherboard, of the processor and other critical components) but aggregating these numbers increases your errors somewhat.

--

could it be they like the BSD license better? (1)

poopie (35416) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458323)

Why would INTEL choose FreeBSD when Linux has all of the (deserved or not) hype, momentum, and business interest?

To answer that question, get a room full of lawyers for computer company legal departments together and have them read the GPL.

.. ask them if they'd like their company's product to be involved with the GPL license.

I understand the GPL. You understand the GPL. Maybe 95+% of slashdot readers understand the GPL, but do you think that corporate lawyers for tech companies who make their money from intellectual property protection are eager to get involved with anything that might require disclosure of their intellectual property?

I'm betting that many companies have official policies (enforced or not) against opensource software due in part to fear of the GPL.

so... the decision comes down to linux+gpl_potential_legal_worries or *BSD+100%_FREE_No_strings_attached .

And the legal department chooses which one??

__
Despite how we try to ignore them, facts take their toll.

Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li (2)

Tom Christiansen (54829) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458324)

Nice idea, but before we get "integration" across the Freenix world, shouldn't we please get a bit of integration across *Linux first? Right now, there's a whole long ways to go.

Re:MTBF (1)

mistalinux (78981) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458325)

How did they come up with that morsel of stability,.That's about 9 years. So ... this thing has been tested for 9 years. Definitely not!!!

It's pretty simple, they've made a mistake on the web page. It should be "The Total Mean Time Between Failure (TMTBF) which is explained as such:
They have 15 machines which have been up for an average of 5149.6 hours (214.56 days), and when the 15th machine goes down, all of the hours are added up to achieve 77244.

*BSD v Linux. (1)

CodeMonky (10675) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458326)

In my personal experience i have had more luck using linux as a workstation while using *bsd as a server platform. As far as the MTBF goes I am guessing that this is a little bit of a fudge and a bit misleading. Chances are that they are using the death of hardware as the failure. Very rarely have a i seen an os (non MS) just stop working.

Re:How do they figure that? (1)

karji (114631) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458327)

I guess they let 100 machines run for a couple of weeks, recorded the number of times they crashed, and statistically infered with certainty 95% that the uptime is somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5 years. That would presume that uptime has an exponential distribution, meaning that whether a crash occurs or not would have nothing to do with how long the machine has been up already. Therefore such a method would not account for hard disk or other component failure due to age.

What? Where? (1)

BMIComp (87596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458328)

FYI. That Dameonnews link doesn't work. Also, i looked on their site, and i couldn't find an article related to the topic.

Re:MTBF (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458329)

Well, you can calculate stuff like this...

integration between *BSD and *Linux (1)

Tom Christiansen (54829) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458330)

How is it that *BSD demands more from an admin that *Linux does? I run both, and I really don't see that kind of dramatic distinction.

Congratulations BSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458331)

One nice side effect of not being the hottest thing in town is the ability to have a more methodical development cycle. It takes longer to get the latest and greatest but things don't mysteriously break as often.

9 years?? (3)

Merk (25521) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458332)

If that's true then:

A list of things likely to fail before FreeBSD

  • Windows
  • OS/2
  • Linux
  • Most calculators
  • Most moving parts in a car
  • Your average toothbrush
  • Stout leather shoes
  • Poorly built houses

The strange thing is that I bet any 9 year old computers running FreeBSD have Y2K BIOS issues and will fail in what now, less than 2 weeks?

Good thing most of us won't be around to see it, as the Korean, Indian and Pakistani nukes simultaneously launch at 12:00:00 on Jan 1st and wipe us out, turning the survivors into horrible mutant-zombies.

Completely off-topic but (and maybe this would make a good Ask Slashdot) does anybody have any good suggestions for post-apocalyptic type movies to watch over the next couple of weeks? How about video games? For that one I know only of the "Fallout" series.

Re:How do they figure that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458333)

When you say "hard disk", do you mean the drive going off or the disk itself? And what does hardness matter? What about a floppy or a CD or a zipster?

I've never understood the Wintel folks' naming scheme.

Hmm (1)

Cloud K (125581) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458334)

Microsoft looking for FreeBSD experts and Intel using FreeBSD. Smells fishy to me! Thinking: Windows 2005 - Based on FreeBSD technology, and teamed up with Intel to help dominate the PC market and stomp out Linux...

Re:could it be they like the BSD license better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458335)

/me beats hose
Please, this is a family forum.

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (1)

Jonas ÷berg (19456) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458336)

I've been stomping around being mildly irritated because NetBSD doesn't seem to support SMP and software RAID. Or rather; it might, at least software RAID. But apparently you need some special package for it. I'm probably being suitably lame about it, but with the Linux kernel, I compiled in multiple disk support and had the system running in half an hour.

Still, that NetBSD can run on my old VAX computers are golden. It's nothing as interesting as having a VAXstation 3100 serving as Windows NT PDC.

Re:wow (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458337)

how is freebsd's perfomance

Probably not very good (!!) since the article mentions (my emphasis) that

The underlying operating system is a customized version of freeBSD that has been optimized specifically for file serving.

The implication seems to be that FreeBSD is not optimal for servers. My guess is that they choose it for its (allegedly) superior security model.

Is there any chance that this discussion will not turn into a holy war? No? Thought not... :-(

MTBF a definition as well as a formula. (2)

jelwell (2152) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458338)

To find out what Mean Time Between Failure really means, try this Adaptec Whitepaper [adaptec.com] for an informative look as to how an MTBF can be calculated.
Joseph Elwell.

Re:Linux or FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458339)

Linux has more software and more importantly more hardware drivers available. BSD has better security and is more reliable than Linux particularly in high load environments.

Re:9 years?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458340)

"Fail for y2k"? You have a nutty idea of failure. I guess some idiots might have used a "19%d" in their printfs somewhere, and so we'll see some y19k errors, but I can't imagine the system will actually fail.

Re:9 years?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458341)

There was a TV movie many years ago called "The Day After", I doubt if that piece of trash ever made it to Blockbuster but who knows? There was also a book I once read called "Alas, Babylon", perhaps somebody made a movie of it.

Live long and Prosper (1)

Tokyo Joe (102302) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458342)

Fails once every 9 years, hardware only I suspect.

That I could believe, except I am a cynic today. If Intel starts to make boxes that last 9 or 10 years without fail, 4 or 5 years from now they will go broke due to lack of sales. This makes me suggest a decimal place error, maybe 770 hours or about 1 month....

It's like washing machines, when my folks got married they brought a washing machine, it lasted 20 years, they have had 2 more since then... The company that makes them (over here in New Zealand) is many many times more profitable than it was, yet it's product is arguably a worse product despite being cheaper to run and having fancy automatic features.

Re:*BSD v *Linux. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458343)

An operating system is an operating system. This whole "desktop" versus "server" illusion is purest poppycock.

Now, both *BSD and *Linux work fine for whatever, but long-term Unix admins and security mavens definitely prefer running *BSD.

Re:MTBF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458344)

Ah, so what if I have 772,440 machines running for 1 hour, and 698,196 of them crash within 1 second? Do I add the uptimes and come up with a figure of around 77,244 hours? That doesn't make sense, considering 90% of the machines crashed immediately.

Re:wow (1)

eel (91514) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458345)

2 out of the three privious replys to you question have oviously never used any BSD. It is true that freeBSD is not the most secure os on the planet, acording the the guys at the Cult of the Dead Cow that distinction belongs to openBSD. and as for preformance freeBSD tends to run linux apps faster than read hat, which admitedly is no large feet. But yes freeBSD comes with Xfree86 and will run any window maniger that linux will. It is also far more sable and like I said earlyer faster. But don't trust me check out the hardware that WCCDrom uses to searve with freeBSD and I think that you will be impressed with the sheer power of santa himself.

Re:Linux or BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458346)

Why do you say Linux when you mean Redhat?

MTBF != TTL (3)

The Dev (19322) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458347)

MTBF is indeed misleading because one of the
factors that goes into it is "design life".

For example, if you have a hard drive with
a MTBF of 150,000 hrs (== 17yrs) that does
not mean that it will fail in 17 years, or
that 150,000 of them would produce one failiure
every hour.

It means that if you replace each drive before
the end of it's design life (5yrs) you will
have a failiure on average every 150,000 hrs.

If you use a device beyond it's design life it
will almost certainly fail.

Uptimes and BSD. (4)

mr (88570) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458348)

Having spent 3 days in NYC answering questions...

"Can BSD run this or that?"
The BSDs have support for GNU/Linux binaries. If the program doesn't require a special version of GNU/Linux, or exists as source, it can be made to run on BSD. FreeBSD has some 2,500 different applications. Goto ftp.freebsd.org and look in the packages/INDEX or ports/INDEX and see if your favorite app is listed. If not, port it! (If its hard to port, as the authors to write portable UNIX code, not code for Linux boxes. A foot to the groin, or sticks to the head may help the developers realize that OpenSource is about more than Linux)

"Does BSD preform better than Linux?"
BSD can run Linux binaries. Various studies done via various methods show BSD having a 20% better preformance under high load. If you arn't using your machine alot, you won't notice a difference. If you really care, benchmark it and pick what works for you. Most people have spare CPU cycles, so speed ratings are rather silly.

"Why should I use BSD over Linux?"
If you are in the business of producing software, or producing embedded 'things' (set-top boxes, routers, cameras, controllers, etc la) the BSD licence is simple and easy to understand. The GPL is written to help foster the goal of source code release. If you have no desire to release your code, a BSD licenced base does not have the GPL source code release issues. As a user, BSD can run BSD *AND* Linux shrink-wrapped binaries, whereas Linux can not run BSD. Therefore BSD has a wider base of possible software that can run on it.

As for a 100 year up-time..
As your tempature rises (every 10 degrees increases the reaction rate 2x times), and we approach .1 micron widths, (18 atoms wide!) you have faster migration of the chip chemistry out of where you want, to where you don't want. Even with old TTL, the projected life is 50 years. The newer chips will have less life. (I don't remember the projected life of the newest .18 micron chips)

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458349)

I'm running BSD on my Sparc Classic. It's awesome.

Re:could it be they like the BSD license better? (3)

poopie (35416) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458350)

typo for horse

was an irc reference. to days gone by when IRC was the most interesting thing on the internet.


... family forum?
You mean to tell me that whole families are reading slashdot?

son:"Gee mom, what did you think about the KRASH release of KDE?"
mom:"I still haven't forgotten the old qt licenseing. Have you done your homework?"
dad:"Yes, son, before you check your packet capture programs for our neighbor's ftp passwords, make sure you take the garbage out, or I'll revoke your root access!"
mom:"and help your sister build abiword with a gnome front end so she can write her termpaper. If you do that... we'll increase your anonymous ftp quota by 500megs...!"
dad:"Honey, I've been thinking... maybe we should be contributing more code to the mozilla project."

they won't fail y2k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458351)

The dates will just show Jan 1 1980. Hardly a failure such as a lockup or reboot.

Re:Hmm (1)

fsck (120820) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458352)

want to know what is based on freebsd technology?
the micros~1 tcp/ip shit is, right from the start. being able to modify and hide the changes has helped micros~1 get where it is today. Windows 2xxx kill linux? not in my lifetime.

Re:could it be they like the BSD license better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458353)

I can guarantee you that the license was a factor, but only one of them. The solid twenty year of engineering counted, too. And no, I can't post under my real name. :-(

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458354)

I use FreeBSD because it works correctly, it is reliable, and in general, the best OS available. I do not care who makes it. If Intel and Microsoft were to team up, base Win2005 on FreeBSD and make a product that can take on FreeBSD on its merits. I'll use it. I don't give a damn who makes it.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458355)

Once you've installed five different Linux flavors, and then tried to do mass admin of them over a large site, you can see why experienced people choose BSD. I'm completely honest here. I'm at a university, and we still have some Linuxes in the labs, but they proved too hard to admin. There was also the security issue.

Or perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458356)

Their selection of OS is completely irrelevant because they OEMed it and stuck their name on it to get to market sooner?

Yes Wes, it runs FreeBSD. Intel didn't pick it for that, it's just a pleasant side effect. If there was an OEM source that ran 'Embedded NT' for a better price, you bet Intel would have used it.

If you attribute the actions of large corporations to common sense or technical forethough, you will be mistaken more often than not.

Posting AC to protect the names of the guilty...

Re:Linux or FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458357)

It's because in a BSD distribution, everything is very well laid out compared to the Linux distributions--especially in the Open distribution of BSD. Very tight. Everything was carefully thought out, not just grabbed from random places and jammed in without any sort of release management controls and QA checks.

get a new computor (1)

eel (91514) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458358)

If you have been using the same box for 9 years I have got to tell you about some wonderfull advances that have been made in both hardware nad operating systems latly. the first one is some crazy guy with a pengan fetish has written from scratch a UNIX kernal and get this he is GIVING it away. the second thing is that you are no longer limited to 33Mz some newer prosseser are cabeble of running at clock speeds greater than 100Mz.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458359)

kde and gnome aren't just for linuxes alone. they work on any x box, including of course bsd.

Re:MTBF (1)

mistalinux (78981) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458360)

The whole basis behind my hypothesis is that Intel's web page is incorrect, however, I do offer alternate means to achieve that number. If you read what my post said before the numbers part, you would have known that.

Re:This article description is very misleading. (2)

JumpSuit Boy (29166) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458361)

When this was posted in the FreeBSD mailing lists a month or so ago it was pointed out that the appliance was a product of a company that Intel bought.

(Free|Net|Open)BSD all the stability of BSD and all the software of Linux.

Re:Why does it matter that they use BSD? (1)

MattMann (102516) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458362)

It matters, or at least would be nice to know if they
  1. used BSD so they didn't have to GPL their code or
  2. used BSD because they measured it as more reliable or
  3. worst case, for me, both.

Re:This article description is very misleading. (1)

sam_vilain (33533) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458363)

They do not have an "OS of choice". Intel wants is OS agnostic. They don't care which OS you run, as long as it runs on Intel hardware.

Here, here. They used FreeBSD, because FreeBSD is the best solution for a fileserver. It has been demonstrably slower at some general tasks and demonstrably quicker at some others.

Have Intel invested in a development effort for FreeBSD on Merced? I don't think so... but if FreeBSD were to be more popular I'm sure they would. Hardly grounds to say "FreeBSD is the OS of choice".

Funny, the FreeBSD crowd always seem to point the finger at the Linux crowd for being sensationalist. But then, I guess the /. crew are partly (wholly?) to blame; when will the blantantly inaccurate and unresearched headlines/summaries stop?

Re:9 years?? (1)

sam_vilain (33533) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458364)

The strange thing is that I bet any 9 year old computers running FreeBSD have Y2K BIOS issues and will fail in what now, less than 2 weeks?

Gosh, it's a good thing that Linux doesn't allow my servers to suffer from that problem. All kernel versions after circa 1994 will be fine [tux.org] with known non-Y2K compliant RTC hardware.

Re:wow (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458365)

I believe that their customized version is
getting a license from McKusick for softupdates (http://www.mckusick.com/ follow link) for commerical use. If you want softupdates for home usage, go right ahead it is free.
McKusick works for BSDi so Softupdates is not
very free.. but free for home users nonetheless.
I highly doubt that they changed anything else.
...Softupdates is free for personal use
and i recommend you all add options "SOFTUPDATES" to your kernel and tunefs -n now!

Softupdates takes the place of a journaling
filesystem and has the same benefits: two solutions to the same problem.


/dev/ad0s2f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates, writes: sync 53 async 836, reads: sync 2197 async 283)
(I know you like it)
And if you are wondering about the ad instead of wd, i'm using the new ATA driver on -CURRENT just
added a couple days back.

Re:Linux or FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458366)

Why do you say Linux distributions when you mean Redhat and its ilk? Debian is wondeful in this regard -- and I'd never consider running a server off anything else, so it's certainly the one to compare BSDs to.

Re:MTBF is a misleading stat... (2)

Grail (18233) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458367)

Not quite right. In a population of 1000, you will have approximately 500 of them die before they're nine years old, approximately 500 of them die sometime after nine years, and the rest dying dead on the nine year mark.

So in a population of 154,488 machines, you'll have one dying every hour for the next 18 years (for the original population of 77,244 that works out to one dying every two hours for the next 18 years).

If you believe in statistics, you'll find the figure is more like 80,000 of them dying in the period between 7 years and 11 years, if we're looking at a "bell" curve.

Re:Why is this strange? (1)

Freedent (84485) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458368)

Just a quick note here... OpenBSD claims to be the most (or close to) secure OS out of the Box. {Free,Net,Open}BSD are not the same OS at all. There is a much bigger distinction between them than say two different distros of Linux.

Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li (1)

InfiniteReality (9709) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458369)

...whereas Linux has much better documentation and support...

I've actually found FreeBSD to have better documentation than Linux in the form of the FreeBSD Handbook, though that may be because there is only one FreeBSD and many Linux distributions with different configuration tools. The LDP is still and excellent resource.

http://www.freebsd.org/handbook [freebsd.org]

Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li (2)

mr (88570) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458370)

>It's important to make sure the Unix market doesn't get fragmented. Linux and *BSD developers should co-operate to ensure that they implement common features in a standard way.

At the N(BSD BOF)YC (thats BSD birds of a feather at the bazaar in NYC) GNOME was singled out as an example of code that is written with Linux in mind, and not code portability. GNOME is (alledgedly, *I* don't know personally) riddled with Linux-specific assumptions. Even though the code SHOULD be able to work on any X/Unix box, the authors have chosen to make moving the code off of Linux painful.

Add to this, people who push GNU/Linux say LINUX when they should be saying OpenSource or OpenSource OSes only help fuel the belief there is a rift, as opposed to the offending party being just clueless/un-educated. Cluelessness/lack of education is cureable, OS zelotry is not cureable with modern medical technology. This story [linuxtoday.com] on Linuxtoday shows a reporter corrected in a case of using the term Linux when the term OpenSource was a better fit.

It boils down to, do you want a rising tide to float ALL boats, or are you only giving a damn about your linux or BSD digny?

Re:Linux or FreeBSD (2)

bugg (65930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458371)

What software can you run on linux but not freebsd?
I bet you you can't name 5 programs very fast, unless you have been training for this.
Between the compatiblity and just being able to compile it natively, I don't think that is an issue.
I'm using linux-netscape, linux-realplayer, and even a _linux X server_ (XFCom_Rage128)
VMWare works now too.
As for device compatiblity, that is more of a rumor that is becoming less and less true every day. What kind of support for USB does Linux have?
(snippet from LINT, the list of kernel options)
# General USB code (mandatory for USB)
controller usb0
#
# Generic USB device driver
device ugen0
# Human Interface Device (anything with buttons and dials)
device uhid0
# USB keyboard
device ukbd0
# USB printer
device ulpt0
# USB Iomega Zip 100 Drive
controller umass0
# USB mouse
device ums0

That's a good amount of support.. and most of it has been there for awhile.
Even MCA is supported in -CURRENT now, and I don't know anyone who uses MCA equipment still. (Well, I lie, I know one)

Re:What? Where? (1)

Eric Wayte (4583) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458372)

http://daily.daemonnews.org has been having ISP problems today.

Please hang up and try your call again later.

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458373)

Yeah !!! Someone moderated that faggot Tom down. The world is a wonderful place.

Re:Linux or FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458374)

I found that linux has more information on line it is easier to get your linux related questions answered.

Re:9 years?? (1)

ostrich2 (128240) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458375)

For my money, you can't beat "Wizards" for post-apocolyptic movie enjoyment. It's a bit obscure, but where else can you see elves, wizards, Nazis, handguns, and mutants all in the same frame?

Re:MTBF != TTL (1)

greenrd (47933) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458376)

Ah, that's informative. Bit of a con, that. Moderate that post up!

Re:9 years?? (1)

AstroJetson (21336) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458377)

...does anybody have any good suggestions for post-apocalyptic type movies to watch over the next couple of weeks?

"A Boy and His Dog", but just don't take it too seriously.

ISO files are "permission denied" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458378)

Too bad the ISO files to burn your own CD are not available. I wanted to try it after reading the article - nope! Permission Denied.

Re:9 years?? (1)

emmons (94632) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458379)

theoretically, BSD will never fail. the hardware running the system eventually will causing the system to die, but the software never will.

well, windows would.

-----

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458380)

Huh? What does "redundant" mean? This was only posted once.

Re:Why is this strange? (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458381)

Obviously you havent been hanging around on bugtraq seeing the massive slew of security holes emerging from the current version of freebsd. FreeBSD is as full of holes as linux and probably more since less people use it - the secure claim indisputably goes to openbsd NOT freebsd. BSD performance is faster on single cpu machines but sucks rocks on multicpu machines due to large grained locks in the kernels (dont believe me - look at the code yerself). Heck OpenBSD cant even do SMP *YET*.

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458382)

Did it ever occur to you to moderate the flaming assholes instead of legitimate questions?

Story is not quite true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458383)

The truth is that Intel buys these boxes from an OEM and then relabels them with the Intel name. Intel does not build these boxes, nor did Intel develop this box or directly choose FreeBSD. It just happened to be the what the OEM provided.

Wes Peters who offered this story to Slashdot knows the truth because he participated in the freebsd mailing list discussion on this very topic. In fact he was told personally by Intel employees that Intel buys these units from an OEM. It should be noted that Wes Peters is a very zealous FreeBSD advocate who spends much of his free time involved in advocacy web sites and mailing lists. It is public knowledge. If anyone cares to check the mailing list archives at freebsd.org you can see all these facts for yourself.

I think this kind of dishonest advocacy is is unproductive in the long term because when the real story is exposed it casts doubts on other claims about FreeBSD, some of which might be legitimate.

The truth of the matter is that Intel is a major investor in BeOS and Linux. Intel is a partner with SCO and IBM on the next generation Unix to combine AIX and SCO. Intel has invested millions of dollars in these projects but has never invested in FreeBSD. When Intel chose to debut its flagship processor it used Windows NT and Linux as its OS of choice. FreeBSD does not even run on Intel's flagship processor. From these facts alone it would be quite a stretch to claim that FreeBSD is Intel's "OS of choice".

YALCAYANNPSSWNMPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458384)

Yet
Another
Lame
Comment
About
YANNPSSWNMPA

Re:9 years?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458385)

MAD MAX.
'nuff said

Re:How do they figure that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458386)

While tc often makes rabid and ridiculous claims, he at least makes them intelligently and eloquently. You on the other hand simply bash him with the vocabulary of a rebellious 8th grader.

For good old post-apocalypse fun, try Wasteland (1)

hawkestein (41151) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458387)

There's a classic post-apocalyptic computer RPG called Wasteland. In fact, I believe it was done by the same guys who did Fallout, so you can think of Fallout as being the spiritual successor to Wasteland. It was an awesome game, the first non-fantasy RPG I remember playing on my computer. I don't know where you'd find it these days.

Copy protection consisted of numbered paragraphs in an accompanying manual. So, at certain points in the game, it would say "See paragraph x", and you'd have to read paragraph x to see what has happening. Of course, they had to put fake, unused paragraphs in the book too, or else you could just read it and get valuable game hints. Gosh, that system was a bad idea!
---

Re:Why does it matter that they use BSD? (1)

reptilian (75755) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458388)

#1 I am a little concerned about too. #2 I'm not. BSD definitely behaves better in certain aspects than linux does, and vice-versa. That's one of the huge points in the open source movement: freedom of choice. Certainly it would be difficult for one OS to fulfill every need on the planet efficiently and effectively, thus having the choice is extremely important. In my particular opinion, freedom of choice of lisence is also important.

As for your first point. That is a concern, but not a very big one. Like I said already, I believe freedom to lisence in any way you want is important too. I guess in this case I just have to say it's their right. I would definitely prefer if they used a GP[L|V] OS so I could get a peak at some intel code, but it would be their choice to make, not mine, or anyone elses.

Here's to hoping this doesn't get me flamed...

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

Re:could it be they like the BSD license better? (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458389)

After reading the hoopla about how other people money are making money on free software, I doubt 95% of Slashdot readers fully understand the GPL.

I would say it is closer 45%, and that is being optimistic.

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (1)

JordanH (75307) | more than 14 years ago | (#1458390)

Well, since Sparc's were originally sold with ONLY the option of BSD, this is not surprising.

SunOS 4 was a BSD derivative.

I think, more specifically, you mean that you are running NetBSD or some other "free" BSD.


-Jordan Henderson

Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458391)

Interesting, because GNOME runs great on my OpenBSD box.

And by the way, I've proven repeatedly that frequent EST is quite effective in curing both rabid freebsd idiots, and clueless linux bigots. The secret is to keep upping the voltage until you hear sizzling noises.

Re:integration between *BSD and *Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458392)

Yes, you're right. I mean a free one.

Re:Wholly hot momma! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458393)

Time for a BSD song.

I'd agree except for the bit about the license. No way I am going to release code under a license that lets other people sell it without me getting a cut.

Re:Uptimes and BSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1458394)

"Various studies done via various methods show BSD having a 20% better preformance under high load"

I've seen quotes like this hundreds of times, but I have yet to see a reference. The closest I've found was that apps using bpf (a BSD specific interface) run faster on BSD. Which is a pretty ridiculous comparison.

My own testing of FreeBSD-current(about a month ago) vs. Linux 2.2.13 on my SCSI dual PII-450 shows a make -j of my 25,000 line project is a good 25% faster on Linux. But I'm more than willing to chalk that up to FreeBSD's shitty SMP. I do development, so I used compilation as my benchmark. I'd be curious to hear from people who have benchmarked networking, and pure number-crunching.

If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the numbercrunching would be mostly identical (not like the kernel is doing much), and I'd guess based on (second-hand) anecdotes that FreeBSD's networking would be faster.

I'd love some more numbers, especially in different roles.

Re:What? Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#1458395)

Must be an ISP that is using FreeBSD....

You're looking at the wrong piece (1)

JennyWL (93561) | more than 13 years ago | (#1458396)

BitPoet said: There are a lot more than 9 computers in the world running -BSD, so you could take a sample on the number of computers running -BSD, and the number of times those computers had to reboot in, say a month.

That would give you the MTBF for BSD, but that's only one part of the product. Storage Station also has a board and one or two hard drives. The MTBF for the complete product is mostly based on MTBF for the moving parts, i.e. the hard drives.

Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 13 years ago | (#1458397)

Also worth nothing that the BSD license allows them to take it proprietary, whereas with Linux it would have to stay opensource.

Since this is in fact a proprietary product it is obvious why BSD was selected. It was all about the license.

Personally I don't like the idea of a company taking code I write, and then selling it without me getting a piece of the action.


By the way, does anyone have mirror of the article? Daemon News is slashdotted.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#1458398)

once you've installed 4 different BSD flavors, (net, free, open, bsdi) which are only binary compatible in certain directions (!), you'll see why experienced people (ie, not college computer lab student admins) choose Solaris or Linux. My Slackware 7 box can run apps compiled on any version of RedHat, any version of debian , any corel, any caldera, and any older version of slackware. Lets see you run a binary I compiled on OpenBSD on your FreeBSD box. BSD idiots (ie, not all BSD developers and users, just the ones who make stupid arguments like yours) who claim that Linux is fragmented really need to pull their head out of their ass.

There is also the security issue, check bugtraq for security problems in FreeBSD. Now factor in the much larger userbase of Linux.

All of the BSDs are quite good, however, self rightous ex-linux users who switched to freebsd because linux got too popular and then troll public forums make me ill.

FreeBSD-current's SMP support is just now passing where Linux was with 2.0. Linux 2.4 is just around the corner. Now, how many of those high-end servers are single CPU? Perhaps free/net/openBSD everywhere is not the most intelligent move to be advocating.

Why Storage Station uses FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#1458399)

cpeterso said: Intel probably used FreeBSD for this "file server applicance" because of the BSD license, which is favorable to companies that would like to borrow BSD code for closed, commercial products.

Actually, it's because the company that built this product FOR Intel picked FreeBSD to put inside it. Storage Station was designed before Intel began investing in Linux: remember it takes some 6-9 months to get a product from design to shipment. As cpeterso also said, Intel does indeed want to be OS-agnostic: the "tel" half of the Wintel near-monopoly doesn't want to borrow any of the problems that the "Win" half suffers from.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>