Linked by Tony Bourke on Wed 31st Mar 2004 19:38 UTC
FreeBSD FreeBSD has a solid reputation in terms of features and performance on x86, powering sites from Hotmail to Yahoo, yet it doesn't tend to be the first (or even second) OS that comes to mind with many people when thinking of Solaris alternatives for the SPARC platform.
Order by: Score:
Okay, question
by Nachmias on Wed 31st Mar 2004 20:26 UTC

And this is just a question, not to take anything away from BSD. Why, after spending all the money on a SPARC, would you want to run a BSD on it? Why wouldn't you just run Solaris which is optimized for it?

Mistake
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Mar 2004 20:38 UTC

Hotmail is powered by Windows 2000 not FreeBSD.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.hotmail.com


No wonder its been crappy out lately :

2038
by Ryan on Wed 31st Mar 2004 20:43 UTC

FreeBSD on Sparc64 is also year 2038 compliant ;) .

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.155.115.209.in-addr.arpa)
by [SQ]werl on Wed 31st Mar 2004 21:01 UTC

It used to be though. Although I think the Author should have specified that.

re: Mistake
by slash on Wed 31st Mar 2004 21:15 UTC

"Hotmail is powered by Windows 2000 not FreeBSD. "

I don't think so. Last time this conversation came up, it was apparent that microsoft was still running FreeBSD but just doing a really good job at hiding it. If you use certain url's, you'll see that FreeBSD is still doing the hefty work.

hotmail is
by maceto on Wed 31st Mar 2004 21:21 UTC

is even doc`s from ms on the web to prove it, and a friend knows the Indian, wich name I can`t remember made hotmail, not possible to convert 4 million accounts+++++

IDE disk speed
by Hendrik Scholz on Wed 31st Mar 2004 22:01 UTC

your hdd was running in WDMA mode. Try using atacontrol to enable UDMA33 (in case the drive supports it ;) )

Doesnt MS own Hotmail?
by Brad on Wed 31st Mar 2004 22:14 UTC

Why does MS use FreeBSD for thier Hotmail service instead of thier own Windows OS? There own product aint up to the challenge? Heh.

RE: FreeBSD 5.2.1 on SPARC64
by Noth on Wed 31st Mar 2004 22:26 UTC

There have been several threads on freebsd-current@ lately about performance issues with MySql. Most of them boil down to either the threading library being used to compile MySql (iirc linuxthreads seems faster and more stable than the alternatives), or (mis)configurations of the DNS resolver. I don't know what compile-time options were used to build the binary you tested, but perhaps you should look into the above issues before blaming the hard disc or the kernel of the operating system itself or anything else.

@Brad
by jayson knight on Wed 31st Mar 2004 22:40 UTC

The company they bought hotmail from originally had it on BSD. They claim to have switched most of it over to Windows, but this article claims otherwise: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMisc/2001/2001-MS-BSD.htm... This article is almost 3 years old though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Re: Doesn't MS own HoTMaiL
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2004 22:49 UTC

Yes, yes, they do. However, they've been trying to convert HoTMaiL over to Windows and IIS from the first day they owned it. They had horrible failures trying to convert to NT4 Server. They had moderate success with Windows 2000. But, last I heard, they only converted over the front-end webservers to use Win2K and IIS. The backend database servers are still on Solaris, and the mail servers or DNS servers or something is still running FreeBSD 4.x.

To the public, it looks like they are using Windows technology. Behind the scenes, there's very little Windows in use. ;)

Solaris
by Andrew on Wed 31st Mar 2004 23:17 UTC

Solaris is truly one of the best implementations of UNIX derivatives whether closed source or Open Source. And it's binary compatible with so much Linux code. If you have never run it, go to sun.com and download it. It's industrial strength and fully 64-bit for Solaris and will be 64-bit for AMD64.

- Andrew

will it work....
by poundsmack on Wed 31st Mar 2004 23:30 UTC

will freebsd run on ultraspark 3 and 4 processors?

I really would like....
by BSDero on Wed 31st Mar 2004 23:49 UTC

...to have FreeBSD running at least in sun4m (sigh*) ....would be really, really cooooool....

Bsdero

RE: Re: Doesn't MS own HoTMaiL
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Mar 2004 23:56 UTC

How do you know this?

y
by poundsmack on Wed 31st Mar 2004 23:58 UTC

y wont freebsd run on unltra sparc processors?

Redhat
by zdk on Thu 1st Apr 2004 03:07 UTC
out of topic tho
by t3RRa on Thu 1st Apr 2004 07:03 UTC

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=login.passport.com
at least some gateway machines run FreeBSD i guess...

anyway back on topic, I wish I had a sparc64 machine to test FreeBSD Sparc port on it. ;)

Performance on 5.x branch
by Kris on Thu 1st Apr 2004 09:15 UTC

As noted in the release notes for 5.2, this branch is still in heavy development and is not optimized for performance. You should not expect good benchmark performance from it. This should hopefully be substantially addressed by 5.3, at least as far as network performance goes.

wait for -STABLE
by Jon Noack on Thu 1st Apr 2004 09:16 UTC

LinuxThreads is the way to go ( http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000697.html ) on FreeBSD right now -- too bad it's only ported for i386. Recently users have reported success using MySQL with the new KSE (libpthread) threading library. I would love to see you revisit this comparison (and throw Linux 2.6 in) when FreeBSD 5.x goes -STABLE with version 5.3.

FreeBSD Rocks on good hardware...
by mick_nobody on Thu 1st Apr 2004 17:46 UTC

I can see FBSD being nice on the UltraSparc platform... I run 5.2 on two 4 way Alpha 2100's it is rock solid, fast and easy to use.

The FreeBSD folks in #freebsd on freenode are very very helpful too!

VT100 doesn't work
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Apr 2004 03:09 UTC

OK.. this guy can't find a terminal emulator (hint, TeraTerm, Windows Hyperterminal?) that does a VT100 emulation???

RE: Performance on 5.x branch
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Apr 2004 17:13 UTC

I wonder if the author disabled all of the debugging options, which are enabled by default in the GENERIC kernel for the 5.x branch, and recompiled the kernel? I've noticed performance increases after these were disabled.

RE: Performance on 5.x branch
by Jon Noack on Fri 2nd Apr 2004 20:59 UTC

The reviewer was running 5.2.1-RELEASE. The 5.x releases have debugging options turned off.

Installing from ANSI
by Snowblind on Sat 3rd Apr 2004 14:22 UTC

Don't use the arrow keys, use - and + to move around.

RE: I really would like....
by Anonymous on Sun 4th Apr 2004 08:14 UTC

Just use OpenBSD or NetBSD for Sun4M, I run both at home. OpenBSD on a SS-5 (170MHz) with a QFE for a router/firewall/www/ssh and then NetBSD on a SS-LX just for fun.
Great machines.

FreeBSD 5.x is slow because...
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Apr 2004 10:41 UTC

The default kernel has a fair amount of debug stuff compiled in. It used to warn you of that in /usr/src/UPDATING.

Try compiling the kernel with the debugging options removed and you should see a speed improvement.

Compiling ...
by qoquaq on Thu 8th Apr 2004 22:18 UTC

I tried a 5.1 for Sparc and had trouble with ports. I finally gave up and decided to wait for a more stable version. I will give this a try.

I also had the same experience with the keyboard during installation. It is a lot easier to install on X86 hardware.