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!

FreeBSD 7.0 Release Now Available

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the get-it-while-it's-hot dept.

Software 229

cperciva writes "The first release from the new 7-STABLE branch of FreeBSD development, has been released. FreeBSD 7.0 brings with it many new features including support for ZFS, journaled filesystems, and SCTP, as well as dramatic improvements in performance and SMP scalability. In addition to being available from many FTP sites, ISO images can be downloaded via the BitTorrent tracker, or for users of earlier FreeBSD releases, FreeBSD Update can be used to perform a binary upgrade."

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

Netcraft (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22581824)

Netcraft confirms it, first post.

Re:Netcraft (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582902)

I've never understood the point of wasting a mod point modding down an AC comment that most people won't see anyway.

Re:Netcraft (1, Insightful)

professional_troll (1178701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583814)

Yeah, you should be giving your mod points to me BITCHES!

Fuck Islam

I thought FreeBSD was dead... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22581862)

nt

Still hard to install? (-1, Troll)

Nigel_Powers (880000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581908)

I don't want to have to figure out disk geometry to install an OS...have they made it as easy as Ubuntu?

I'd gladly give it a go.

Re:Still hard to install? (-1, Troll)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581944)

It reminds me of an old joke.. It's not BSD until its BSDm.

Mmmm masochism.

I guess it couldn't get much worse...

Re:Still hard to install? (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582132)

Its been easy for the last several releases if you are willing to accept defaults.

Re:Still hard to install? (3, Interesting)

piojo (995934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582256)

Hmm. The time I tried to install FreeBSD, the installer choked on my hardware. I tried two different dell desktops. Part of the problem was an inability to deal with a USB keyboard. I hope that has been fixed, and I plan to try FreeBSD again, some day. I'll stick with a more common OS, for now.

Re:Still hard to install? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582622)

er... how is that flamebait? moderation isn't supposed to be a way of saying "i don't agree with that"... read the mod guidelines sometime.

Re:Still hard to install? (3, Informative)

halber_mensch (851834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583144)

Hmm. The time I tried to install FreeBSD, the installer choked on my hardware. I tried two different dell desktops. Part of the problem was an inability to deal with a USB keyboard. I hope that has been fixed, and I plan to try FreeBSD again, some day. I'll stick with a more common OS, for now.
FWIW, there's something about Dells and USB keyboards and the FreeBSD single user mode. I'm not sure exactly what the problem is (or I'd contribute my own fix), but a workaround is to go to the loader prompt on boot (option 6 I think) and enter 'set hint.atkbd.0.disabled="1"'m then 'boot'. This will bump the AT keyboard out of the way and allow the USB keyboard to function. You'll either need to set this in your /boot/device.hints after installation or remember to do it whenever you boot into single user mode.

Re:Still hard to install? (3, Informative)

parc (25467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583470)

I haven't run FreeBSD since 6.0, but the problem with Dells, IIRC, is that the AT controller acts like there's a keyboard there even if there isn't one.

I had no problem using the clearly labeled "boot with USB keyboard" menu option.

It's a moot point -- with the at mux that came in I believe halfway through the 6-series, you can have as many keyboards as you feel like.

Re:Still hard to install? (4, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582318)

Slated for 7.1 is support for booting GPT [wikipedia.org] partitioned disks. This will make the whole partitioning thing even easier, since it will make BSD labels and the MBR go away entirely, and partitioning will be done entirely using LBA addressing.

Re:Still hard to install? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583340)

LBA adressing -- brought to you by the RAD Redundant Acronym Department.

Re:Still hard to install? (3, Funny)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584264)

LBA adressing -- brought to you by the RAD Redundant Acronym Department.
Are they a subsidiary of the Department of Redundancy Department?

Reminds me of a .SIG here - They repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end - or however it goes.

Re:Still hard to install? (-1, Troll)

ceroklis (1083863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582530)

You don't need to specify the geometry. However you need to know:

- the IRQs and port numbers used by your cards
- the video clock rate
- the number of stop bits for the terminal
- the hard drive PIO mode
- the memclock index value
- the hard drive encoding method
- the ROW precharge time
- the typematic delay

newbie-ready as you can see.

Re:Still hard to install? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582778)

I've never needed to know any of those things to install FreeBSD. We run a number of FreeBSD virtual machines and physical servers. I installed them all myself. The most complicated part was entering network information, since all of these systems had static IPs and weren't using DHCP. Unless you're doing something out of the ordinary, you can just use all the defaults and have a fully working system in 15-20 minutes on an average machine.

I've been using FreeBSD since version 2.2.7. I've been using Linux and other OSs even longer. Operating systems that have been around as long as these weren't just created from the start to be a breeze to install. Linux used to require a lot more manual configuration than it does now... just because something like Ubuntu makes it easy doesn't mean it always was. Linux has progressed in this area, and so has FreeBSD, and so have most other mature operating systems.

Also, FreeBSD is not targeted at the same audience as something like Ubuntu. A better comparison would be PC-BSD and Ubuntu, as they are targeted at desktop users. I guess maybe FreeBSD could be compared to the server or alternate editions of Ubuntu, in which case the install process (using text screens) is fairly similar.

Re:Still hard to install? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582980)

Why the hell are you ranting about Ubuntu and Linux? Is it a required trait of the BSD user to randomly start trolling Linux and GPL?

Re:Still hard to install? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583568)

They're just jealous because BSD is dying. You don't even have to point to Netcraft, Slashdot no longer provides a link to the BSD section. It was a nice run, but it's time to let go and move on.

Re:Still hard to install? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22584508)

No, it's not required, but I sure do see a lot of it. What I find amusing is the Linux zealots ragging on BSD because it doesn't have a lickable install environment like most distros do nowadays. Face it: the overwhelming number of self-proclaimed linux users here on Slashdot are using Ubuntu or some other one-button install CD. They don't know how to install, the installer knows how to install. The old days of partitioning and setting IRQs and memory addresses are gone. So fine. FreeBSD's installer is easy. It's even easier if you know what you're doing, which a lot of people here don't. That's OK too; that's why there's Ubuntu or Mint or whatever. So cut the sanctimonious crap. Linux isn't going to change the world, no matter how cool the installer is. Got it?

Re:Still hard to install? (2, Interesting)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583914)

Ubuntu easy to install? Perhaps. But does it meet the quality standards of FreeBSD and esp OpenBSD? I dumped Ubuntu and over wrote the partitition with OpenBSD because everytime I tried to manually enter in my network encryption parameters manually, the next time Ubuntu booted it just ignored it and locked onto the strongest unencrypted signal.

Re:Still hard to install? (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584454)

everytime I tried to manually enter in my network encryption parameters manually, the next time Ubuntu booted it just ignored it and locked onto the strongest unencrypted signal.

Were you using nm-applet and the keyring? I've never had a problem doing it like that.

Re:Still hard to install? (1)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583078)

I don't want to have to figure out disk geometry to install an OS...have they made it as easy as Ubuntu?

You don't need to figure out the disk geometry if you use the guided installer. I usually like to set that myself anyways, I find it funny you want it compared to Ubuntu, Ubuntu almost wants to hold me back from setting up my disk exactly how i want it. As far as how easy the installer is, if you can install a Slackware system its pretty similar, same solid color menus and package selection(if you don;t chose the install everything).

Re:Still hard to install? (4, Insightful)

halber_mensch (851834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583086)

I don't want to have to figure out disk geometry to install an OS...have they made it as easy as Ubuntu?

I'd gladly give it a go.
Let me fix that for you.

I don't want to have to figure out something worthwhile to say...it's not my favoritest Linux so I'll just discredit it.

I refuse to willingly evaluate it without preconceived prejudice.

Re:Still hard to install? (1, Redundant)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584356)

While I believe you quite rightly attained your +Insightful mod, I couldn't even start to tell you what my disk geometry is, and I'm running openSUSE, XP and (sorry) Vista on the same HDD, partitioned through Linux fdisk after XP had the whole disk, and Vista was the last thing on there. Messing around with partitions is not hard, but never have I been asked to delve into things that the BIOS presents and are ignored only to be faced with a utility querying the HDD itself and be asked if the returned information is true.

I'm not ignorant, stupid, unable to find out how to do things (except work out why this 2.6.22-17 kernel that I rolled myself with all the right things in refuses to accept my high quality 80 wire cables) when they need doing, but for serious, how is it that I have never been asked things like that under Linux?
Why is the BSD automatic detection routine so unsure of itself that it asks if you want to override it?

I'm downloading the .ISO right now to give it a fair try, so I'm not baiting anyone. I have a shell account on a server that uses FreeBSD and I find the different layout and commands interesting. Can't wait to give it a try.

Re:Still hard to install? (4, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583406)

Its easier.

Press "A" for auto partitioning and then "A" in the disk layout section for auto-defaults.

As it has been since at least FreeBSD 4.0.

Re:Still hard to install? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583614)

For people that are looking for the more typical mainstream Linux install experience, FreeBSD still isn't there. But it isn't that hard, and there's always DesktopBSD which is pretty much identical apart from the install program and desktop integration.

Whether FreeBSD is too hard to install or not comes down far more to tolerance for ncurses style programs. I personally grew up on them with dos and early windows versions.

Which reminds me that I've got to download a copy of DesktopBSD to try out.

Re:Still hard to install? (1)

xeoron (639412) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583736)

Yes, or at least close to it PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] .

Re:Still hard to install? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583838)

Please look at PC-BSD or DesktopBSD; they would be the equivalent to Ubuntu.

http://www.pcbsd.org/ [pcbsd.org]
http://www.desktopbsd.net/ [desktopbsd.net]

Disk Geometry trolling isn't funny or have you confused this with partitioning. So, are you trolling or are you stating that you don't like to partition drives. If it is partitioning then you may want to check out the above links; if you're trolling, then continue with what you're doing

Just use the default geometry (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22581938)

You don't need to set the disk geometry unless you have weird-ass old disk hardware. Just accept the defaults.

Re:Just use the default geometry (4, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582178)

Leave my old weird ass out of this...

Re:Just use the default geometry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583852)

I'll leave *this* out of your weird old ass.

(bonus! captcha is dismount)

Re:Just use the default geometry (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582232)

Hold on, if you partition with a different utility like gparted/qtparted, will BSD take the space it's given or insist on partitioning something itself?

Re:Just use the default geometry (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582362)

If you have pre-existing partitions that you want to use, it will be perfectly happy with that arrangement.

Re:Just use the default geometry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583254)

But be aware that it's still not fond of booting from extended partitions. They work fine for everything else, but keeping / and /boot on a primary partition is a good idea.

Of course, the easiest is to give FreeBSD one large primary partition and then use the BSD labels to split that up.

Re:Just use the default geometry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22584660)

They're talking about geometry, you're talking about partitioning.

Regardless, yes, if you tell it to use a partition it will use that partition. What else would you expect?

Re:Just use the default geometry (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584202)

We xkcd readers would likely refer to "weird ass-old disk hardware." CAPTCHA: probed.

Performance is really lacking (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22581940)

I was installing the pre-releases as they were coming and now FreeBSD makes Linux look like the IO king. Nothing I could do would give back my old FreeBSD performance other than downgrading. I tried linux on the same machine and for linear reads and writes it finished minutes ahead of the FreeBSD tests.

Re:Performance is really lacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582098)

you have something configured incorrectly or non-equivalently.

Re:Performance is really lacking (5, Insightful)

eht (8912) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582192)

Actually, the usual answer is the pre release have extra stuff turned on to help enable debugging. That's why it's not a release where they turn that extra stuff off, or you can recompile the pre release kernels and such.

ZFS? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22581962)

What level of ZFS support does this have? Is it well tested yet?

Re:ZFS? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582286)

It's quite good. Where I work, we've been using the release candidates to store upwards of 15 TB of data, spread over about 50 hard drives. We haven't had any problems, and the performance has been fantastic.

Solaris still offers better support, but the ZFS support offered by FreeBSD is production quality.

Re:ZFS? (5, Interesting)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582578)

It's actually pretty stable. Having said that, there are some issues surrounding it. For starters, FreeBSD 7.0 uses ZFS ported from version 6, whereas Solaris now has ZFS pegged at version 10. There have been numerous enhancements made to ZFS in v10 which aren't in v6. It remains to be seen how the FreeBSD implementation catches up to the Solaris implementation. There is an upgrade command in ZFS that can upgrade the file system to the new version - but no idea how this will work in future FreeBSD versions yet. Secondly, ZFS runs better on 64bit - so using the 32-bit i386 release is not recommended. Thirdly, you need quite a large clump of memory - over 1GB and preferably 2GB or more. It is recommended to tune some kernel memory parameters to ensure that ZFS doesn't cause your system to panic. ZFS seems to like munching on memory in an attempt to scale. Otherwise ZFS is really good and very stable - perfect for use in a file server. Just don't build your file server on old 32-bit hardware, and make sure you have plenty of RAM.

Re:ZFS? (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583444)

Does ZFS really require that much memory? I don't know how to not make this sound trollish, but that should shut people up about Vista being bloated. Imagine their complaints if Vista's file system required that much memory and then you had to load everything else, on top of that!

Re:ZFS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583506)

Uh, I don't think the Vista file system can come close to the flexibility/power of ZFS.

Re:ZFS? (3, Informative)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584540)

"Does ZFS really require that much memory?"
No, but if it is available it will certainly use it. The upside of ZFS using more memory is that disk IO will be lower so better overall performance.

Re:ZFS? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583636)

Secondly, ZFS runs better on 64bit - so using the 32-bit i386 release is not recommended.

This is quite disappointing to me, as I was going to run FreeBSD on my old box as a file server, and have been anxiously awaiting its release. (I want ZFS's snapshots.)

Is the caution against 32-bit of the form "it's slow and can't handle dozens, hundreds, or thousands of users", or of the form "it's poorly tested, unstable, and may eat your data"?

Re:ZFS? (1)

rmm4pi8 (680224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583768)

I can't answer your original question, but for a basic file server, why not just use Linux and lvm2? It handles both snapshots and disk-redundancy without needing hardware RAID. Manifestly production stable, and scales to many terabytes of storage.

Re:ZFS? (1)

cblack (4342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584446)

I use linux lvm fairly heavily to manage storage across a handful of FC arrays, it is quite nice. But I have to say zfs is far nicer for many reasons (better admin interface, much nicer sw raid management and capabilities, etc).

Re:ZFS? (2, Informative)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584556)

So you have not used ZFS yet? If so, you would know "why not just use Linux and lvm2?" It is just so easy and fast to add extra storage and provide data security across many different devices. For one thing, newfs is redundant.

Re:ZFS? (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584378)

You can still run ZFS on i386, but it's not recommended. There will be a performance hit.
I think the lowest you can go in the memory department is 512MB.

Either way if you're not going to use recommended hardware, you will HAVE to tune ZFS in the system to cope.

I seriously doubt ZFS will destroy your data - but running it on sub-optimal hardware could potentially cause the system to kernel panic.
During BETA testing, even with 2GB of RAM and a core-2 duo, I managed to get a panic without tuning anything. I think there was a last-minute patch in FreeBSD 7 to prevent this. Either way, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable running ZFS on i386 without tuning.

Re:ZFS? (1)

zsau (266209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584696)

You seem to know a lot about ZFS. Is it a file system suitable for use on home computers or small file servers that just let us access movies and music from any computer in the house? Or is it complete overkill in that situation and I should just stay with whatever filesystem I have at the moment.

No need to comment (5, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22581994)

with the announcement of the features last night the following topics were beaten to death already:
Why use FreeBSD? (why not?)
FreeBSD is dead! (clearly its not)
FreeBSD is not dead!
yahoo use freeBSD (nobody cares)
FreeBSD vs Linux (ooh flame ware, but then everybody realized that it doesnt matter some people prefer FreeBSD for stability & the fact its all integrated, some people prefer linux because it has lots of flashy features & there are loads of projects to add extra features to it ( but they're not integrated and don't always play well together)!)

please go about your business there's nothing to spam about here!

Re:No need to comment (5, Funny)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582118)

You just made Slashdot boring. : /

Re:No need to comment (1, Interesting)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582444)

How about the benchmarks that show that FreeBSD just took the performance crown from Linux?

STABLE (-1, Redundant)

webword (82711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582016)

I love how STABLE just sticks out, like BSD wasn't stable before. Ha!

It was damn stable and it'll be stable again, and again...

Re:STABLE (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582560)

*I love how STABLE just sticks out, like BSD wasn't stable before. Ha!*

"7-STABLE" is FreeBSD-speak for "this implements the FreeBSD 7 API/ABI, and any program you write or compile for an earlier release will work just fine on a later release". In other words, the Application Programming/Binary Interfaces won't change in incompatible ways.

This is in contrast to Linux, where updating to a new kernel (belonging to the same "stable" kernel branch, or even applying security patches) can make programs break until you recompile them.

Re:STABLE (0, Redundant)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583038)

Yeah, but OTOH --

Linux has had journaling file systems for years. In fact, it has excellent support for multiple journalled file systems -- XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, and JFS. FreeBSD is just now getting around to supporting journalled file systems. ZFS support has been available in FUSE for quite a while now and I believe is more fully featured than what is found in FreeBSD 7. Linux has also had support for SCTP for quite a while as well. Linux has support for lots more hardware, too.

So, you take your tradeoffs -- do you want cutting edge desktop features or are you more concerned with stability? If stability is the name of the game, then of course you want something as stodgy as FreeBSD. Otherwise, if you're willing to live with the occasional odd program that needs to be recompiled with the new kernel or the occasional kernel bug that pops up, then use Linux.

It's also about your requirements. That's why we have freedom of choice.
 

Re:STABLE (5, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583308)

Linux has had journaling file systems for years.

FreeBSD hasn't wanted journaling filesystems for years, since we've had softupdates which solve many of the same problems but with half the writes. The recent gjournal plugin to the GEOM system is a block-level journal. In other words, it handles all writes to a device, whether or not the overlying filesystem supports journaling. Journaled FAT anyone?

I just said journal a lot, didn't I?

Re:STABLE (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583384)

Explain to me the advantages of journaling over soft updates, which UFS2 supports? I also want to know what the new gjournal FreeBSD utility actually does, especially when used with UFS2. Does it keep a log of changes, along with the metadata updates of the UFS2 soft updates?

Re:STABLE (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583656)

I also want to know what the new gjournal FreeBSD utility actually does, especially when used with UFS2.

From gjournal(8):

This is block level journaling, not file system level journaling, which means gjournal everything gets logged, e.g.: for file systems, it journals both data and metadata.

But BSD is dead. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582096)

A new release? I thought BSD was dead.

Re:But BSD is dead. (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584756)

It has re spawned.

Oooh (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582136)

Pretty red section, I've never seen the BSD section before. Slashdot needs more sections with nice colors.

ZFS Support (5, Informative)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582168)

The summary says it has ZFS support but the website says experimental ZFS support. That seems like a pretty important distiction.

Re:ZFS Support (1)

Cokeisbomb (1001675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582220)

I'd download it, but Comcast would probably think im doing something illegal and cut off the rest of my internet access. Also - how is the downside to being first post and getting a thousand replies to your nonsense "first post NT" message not mentioned more. I'd never go for first post for fear of email.

Re:ZFS Support (5, Informative)

dewarrn1 (985887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582416)

ZFS is indeed labeled experimental, and it's an important distinction. That said, I believe that Pawel Dawidek, who ported the file system from Solaris, is using it in production. The chief caveat at the moment is that ZFS should only be used on the amd64 architecture. Other issues are not specific to FreeBSD's implementation of ZFS, e.g., the large memory footprint, but are instead inherent to the current release of ZFS and would be the same under any OS. More about the project at http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS/ [freebsd.org] .

Re:ZFS Support (5, Informative)

zulux (112259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582616)

Seconded!

We're using FreeBSD 7.2 RC2 ZFS in a production environment on Amd64. It's getting hammered, and holding up fine.

1) ZFS has *solved* our storage problems.
2) ZFS needs 2GB of RAM
3) You should run it on a dual core processor if you're going to use compression.
4) Research glabel so you can move drives around from cable to cable and still use the same device name.*

*more info: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=glabel&sektion=8 [freebsd.org]

Re:ZFS Support (2, Funny)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582680)

Your company may have access to some sweet technology, but I doubt a time machine is one of them. Perhaps you're really running 7.0RC2, not 7.2RC2.

If you *do* have a time machine, do CPU topology detection and EFI+GPT work in 7.2? Does 8.0 have a new installer yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

glabel (1)

dewarrn1 (985887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583336)

Good tip, hadn't tripped over that utility. Thanks!

Re:ZFS Support (5, Insightful)

voisine (153062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582508)

This is not intended as a troll... really... but it's good to keep in mind that this is the FreeBSD team's definition of "experimental". You may be more accustomed to the meaning that the Linux community attaches to that term. When Linux says it's experimental, that generally means it won't work for most people. When FreeBSD says it's experimental, that means you can probably use it in production but you might want to keep an eye on it.

Re:ZFS Support (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582648)

I understand what you mean. I figured that if it was included with the stable version, ZFS support is probably very good and just has a couple minor issues.

Re:ZFS Support (2, Informative)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582878)

The same is also true for ZFS on solaris. It's not QUITE there, yet.

Re:ZFS Support (3, Funny)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584592)

Yep, about the same status as NTFS....

Re:ZFS Support (2, Informative)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584434)

When Linux says it's experimental, that generally means it won't work for most people.
Define "work".
As I posted up in the thread, pata_via incorrectly detects my 80 wire cables as 40 wires, but the whole switch over from /dev/hda to /dev/sda (and sdb, hpt366 still puts my 4 RAID chip devices as hda b c and d) went very smoothly and two kernels ago was labelled EXPERIMENTAL.

Turning off all EXPERIMENTAL kernel options leaves you with a system that really is only good for i386, not the i686 and better.

Funnily enough, the devices connected to the HighPoint chip are using the same cables, so it is just a detection routine, and dropping from ATA133 to ATA33 is a PITA, but not a killer when you're using that damned XP for playing games. Linux is still limited by the 2Mbps internet when torrenting so its not really a killer when you don't expect uber-speed from your desktop. I would trade speed for security any day of the week, but I know a fix is right around the corner (/me prays).

Woohoo! (1)

Thornae (53316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582308)

And it's payday!
2.5 TB ZFS NFS, here I come!

no cutesy animal name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582364)

do not want!

Re:no cutesy animal name? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582880)

How about Dusty Daemon?

Nahh....

PC-BSD or DesktopBSD updates coming soon? (1)

Zott and Brock (1204632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582432)

Anyone know anything?

how's the wifi support for proprietary cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582492)

I got a laptop with a Broadcom 4318. Is this well supported, or something you have to try & pray?
And speaking of laptops, does FBSD have a straightforward/easy-to-use disk encryption mechanism (say, on the order of TrueCrypt)?

Re:how's the wifi support for proprietary cards? (2, Informative)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583668)

If FreeBSD doesn't have a driver, you can use the Windows driver. Geom will allow disk encryption, to an even greater degree than TrueCrypt.

Good developer interview at onlamp (5, Informative)

Jeff- (95113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582558)

There is a good interview with many key FreeBSD contributers about new technologies and improvements in 7.0. It is quite technical.

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2008/02/26/whats-new-in-freebsd-70.html?page=1 [onlamp.com]

More good summaries of kernel development (4, Informative)

Steve Hamlin (29353) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584212)


GREAT article - it is interesting for a non-programmer to read this type of technical detail, presented in an understandable way. For me, right at the edge of my theoretical-only knowledge. A detailed summary, I guess. (oxymoron)

Similar article on NetBSD: Waving the flag: NetBSD developers speak about version 4.0 [arstechnica.com] (1/30/2008)

Linux focused links:

Current discussion:
LWN: Kernel [lwn.net]
KernelTrap [kerneltrap.org]
KernelNewbies: Summary of Linux Changes [kernelnewbies.org]
---
The Wonderful World of Linux series are excellent history - in-depth for outsiders:
WWOL 2.2 [kniggit.net]
WWOL 2.4 [kniggit.net]
WWOL 2.6 [kniggit.net]
---
Towards Linux 2.6 - A look into the workings of the next new kernel [ibm.com] (2003)
Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.22) versus Windows (Vista) [pbwiki.com] (2007)

Any luck with HT1000 DMA yet? (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582658)

I have a dual-Opteron rackmount Dell with a ServerWorks HT1000 chipset, running 7.0-PRELEASE from January 15, that was having DMA-related fits. Does anyone know if they've got that problem under control yet? I had seen it discussed a lot on the mailing lists but lately haven't had the time to follow closely. Either way that server's staying on the 7-STABLE line because it's so much faster that I can live with running the drives in PIO4 (and with 4GB of RAM those drives don't get touched a lot).

Re:Any luck with HT1000 DMA yet? (2, Insightful)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583184)

You're probably better off asking the -stable or -current mailing lists.

/mike

Re:Any luck with HT1000 DMA yet? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583348)

The point of asking here was that, as I mentioned in the OP, I haven't had time to read them lately. :-)

Re:Any luck with HT1000 DMA yet? (1)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583500)

Fair enough, but given most people here are Linux or Windows kids, you're still better off asking the lists - even if you get a "read the archives!" response you'll know more than you'll get here. >:)

/Mike

Wait.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582798)


        Mod parent up.... ...I'm lost...what is this about?

      dfp_ord=Math.random()*12100000000000000;
      dfp_tile = 1.3;

Won't compile. (1)

BossMC (696762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583094)

/usr/src7/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/openssl/crypto/engine/eng_padlock.c: In function 'padlock_xcrypt_ecb': /usr/src7/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/openssl/crypto/engine/eng_padlock.c:445: error: can't find a register in class 'GENERAL_REGS' while reloading 'asm' /usr/src7/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/openssl/crypto/engine/eng_padlock.c:445: error: 'asm' operand has impossible constraints
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/src7/src/secure/lib/libcrypto.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/src7/src.
*** Error code 1

Looks like I will have to wait.

Considering switching. (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583442)

I run debian on my main workstation (have for a long time).

These are my requirements before I switch:

fluxbox as wm.
various KDE apps, esp. Amarok.
NFS support
Nvidia binary video drivers. so that I can play: Never Winter nights & Enemy Territory.

Can/Will FreeBSD work for me?
(I run dual Opteron 270's with 2GB of ram so SMP is important but AMD64 is not).

Re:Considering switching. (1)

outZider (165286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583544)

You'll have everything you need. You may want to consider PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] , a.. friendlier edition of FreeBSD. It uses KDE by default, and as you're a Fluxbox user, you'll know how to swap that out as needed.

The only gotcha is that nVidia's binary drivers are just as finicky as in Linux, and you're SOL if you want to use the amd64 version of FreeBSD, unless I'm out of touch. You can find their binary driver here [nvidia.com] .

Re:Considering switching. (1)

BossMC (696762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583572)

If your current setup is working, don't bother switching. FreeBSD is great (I use it on 3 computers), but there is nothing that will blow your mind.

An important remaining question (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583492)

Is when FreeBSD and wine will start to care about each other.

Re:An important remaining question (1)

excelblue (739986) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583626)

They actually do care about each other. It's just that wine gets more leverage on Linux due to a significantly higher proportion of Linux users.

I'm running FreeBSD, and the latest release of wine works just fine for most things.

Re:An important remaining question (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583980)

I'm running FreeBSD, and the latest release of wine works just fine for most things.

Then I guess we have had markedly different wine / FreeBSD experiences. I haven't found a working combination of the two since FBSD 5.4 with a version of wine that was still numbered by its release date. Since then each successive version of wine has run fewer windows applications for me.

And as for games, I have yet to find a windows game that I can run in wine on FreeBSD at all. But obviously that's not the focus of FreeBSD anyways, so I don't hold it against either. It would certainly be nice to be able to at least run some of my most needed windows applications in wine, though.

Not that I completely blame either party - they each are focusing on their core markets. The core market for wine is Linux, with BSD being gravy. Similarly, the core market for FreeBSD is file / database / web server, with workstation stuff primarily being gravy.

So I realize that I really have no right to complain that wine runs so poorly on my laptop running FreeBSD, but it still leaves me wondering if the two will ever care whole-heartedly about each other.

Re:An important remaining question (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583918)

They usually work well together, but the FreeBSD developers approached threading differently than Linux developers. This happened several years ago, when FreeBSD released version 5. So in certain circumstances WINE will have errors which you do not see in Linux. In my experience Blizzard games do not run on FreeBSD's WINE. I have read that WoW ran on FreeBSD.

SCTP (1)

deek (22697) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584214)

To quote from the article ...

I believe we are actually "first" to make it part of the shipping kernel. In Linux you can enable it as a module, but there are extra steps you must take. For FreeBSD its just there, like TCP.

  There's extra steps you must take? What steps are these? I haven't had experience with SCTP on any OS, but I would have thought that once the Linux module is loaded, the protocol is "just there" as well.

  Maybe he's talking about kernel defaults? It's a curious statement that he makes.

Jealous of ZFS (2, Interesting)

cblack (4342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584362)

I've been reading about zfs for awhile and recently started implementing it on some Solaris servers and really getting into it. It's nice. Really nice. I am anxiously awaiting being able to run it on linux (not via FUSE) in production. Has anyone heard anything on the objections over license compatibility and stepping beyond traditional filesystem areas of the kernel?

Re:Jealous of ZFS (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584740)

Won't happen due to incompatibility with the GPL.

One of many benchmarks to back up the announcement (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22584676)

Dramatic improvements in performance and SMP scalability shown by various database and other benchmarks, in some cases showing peak performance improvements as high as 350% over FreeBSD 6.X under normal loads and 1500% at high loads. When compared with the best performing Linux kernel (2.6.22 or 2.6.24) performance is 15% better.

http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/bind-pt.png [freebsd.org]

Summary:

* FreeBSD 7.0-R with 4BSD scheduler has close to ideal scaling on this test.

* The drop above 6 threads is due to limitations within BIND.

* Linux 2.6.24 has about 35% lower performance than FreeBSD, which is significantly at variance with the ISC results. It also doesn't scale above 3 CPUs.

* 7.0 with ULE has a bug on this workload (actually to do with workloads involving high interrupt rates). It is fixed in 8.0.

* Changes in progress to improve UDP performance do not help much with this particular workload (only about 5%), but with more scalable applications we see 30-40% improvement. e.g. NSD (ports/dns/nsd) is a much faster and more scalable DNS server than BIND (because it is better optimized for the smaller set of features it supports).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?