Linked by Andrew Youll on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:12 UTC, submitted by DaaT
BeOS & Derivatives Over at IsComputerOn, an article discusses with Axel Dörfler, the Haiku move for the FreeBSD network stack. Also talked about is the thought of using ReiserFS instead of BFS.
Thread beginning with comment 13980
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why FreeBSD's stack?
by ecko on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:43 UTC
ecko
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't get it? I thought FreeBSD had a stack that was considered at this point to be aging and sub par. A lot of work has gone into making the linux stack multiprocessor friendly and I seem to recall one of BeOS's claims to fame was the the entire GUI was heavily threaded thus yeiled high benefits from SMP systems.

I don't personally like reiserFS because it ate my data one time but I could see why you'd use it in an OS that really isn't ready for production yet. It has many cool features and shares some of the design philosphies of the original BeFS

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why FreeBSD's stack?
by binarycrusader on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:08 in reply to "Why FreeBSD's stack?"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't get it? I thought FreeBSD had a stack that was considered at this point to be aging and sub par. A lot of work has gone into making the linux stack multiprocessor friendly and I seem to recall one of BeOS's claims to fame was the the entire GUI was heavily threaded thus yeiled high benefits from SMP systems.

I'm going to guess it's because of licensing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why FreeBSD's stack?
by Eugenia on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:16 in reply to "RE: Why FreeBSD's stack?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

To all those who don't know: BeOS/Zeta's own "BONE" networking stack is HIGHLY based on the FreeBSD networking stack. It does not use portions of its code, but this is where the Be engineers LOOKED and got INSPIRED and used IDEAS in order to write Bone.

So, when Axel says "I want to use FreeBSD's stack", he doesn't go too far from where Be engineers themselves looked. It is all good IMHO and a nice idea.

As for ReiserFS 4, as long as it does provide ALL the BFS features, I agree that it is a good idea to switch to it too, because Haiku's BFS was *never* really TESTED as they properly testing file systems on other commercial OSes: crazy day and night testing that is with SPECIAL scripts. ReiserFS on the other hand *is* enjoying testing from Novell/SuSE, and so it might prove to be a good candidate because of this testing that has undergone.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Why FreeBSD's stack?
by rayiner on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:15 in reply to "Why FreeBSD's stack?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

FreeBSD's network stack has always been world-class. What was the problem was that it wasn't as fine-grained multithreaded as Linux's, which mean it didn't scale well on SMP. However, as part of FreeBSD's SMPNG project, they've been worked on fixing those issues. In any case, concurrent performance doesn't matter on Haiku. It's a desktop system, and desktop users don't have enough connections open simultaniously for it to be worth distributing the network stack across multiple CPUs.

Reply Parent Score: 1