Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Oct 2012 22:23 UTC, submitted by ebasconp
NetBSD "The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.0, the fourteenth major release of the NetBSD operating system. Changes from the previous release include scalability improvements on multi-core systems, many new and updated device drivers, Xen and MIPS port improvements, and brand new features such as a new packet filter. Some NetBSD 6.0 highlights are: support for thread-local storage (TLS), Logical Volume Manager (LVM) functionality, rewritten disk quota subsystem, new subsystems to handle flash devices and NAND controllers, an experimental CHFS file system designed for flash devices, support for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) protocol, and more. This release also introduces NetBSD Packet Filter (NPF) - a new packet filter, designed with multi-core systems in mind, which can do TCP/IP traffic filtering, stateful inspection, and network address translation (NAT)."
Thread beginning with comment 538929
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Awesome work
by darknexus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 23:46 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I'm pleased to see NetBSD still chugging along. It's an awesome little os. Anyone know how npf compares with OpenBSD's pf in terms of real world performance? I'll need to set up a gateway machine soon and was going to use OpenBSD in order to use pf. If npf performs just as well or even better however, I'll use NetBSD instead as it's quite a bit easier to find compatible, high-quality Wi-Fi chips that work under NetBSD than OpenBSD not to mention a much broader selection of software in pkgsrc.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Awesome work
by smeglister on Thu 18th Oct 2012 02:12 in reply to "Awesome work"
smeglister Member since:
2005-07-07

Just out of curiosity, which Wi-Fi chips do you believe work better under NetBSD vs. OpenBSD? And what exactly is better about them?

I'm not disputing you...I'm just interested to know.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Awesome work
by Soulbender on Thu 18th Oct 2012 02:25 in reply to "Awesome work"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'll use NetBSD instead as it's quite a bit easier to find compatible, high-quality Wi-Fi chips that work under NetBSD than OpenBSD


That has not been my experience. I've always found them pretty much the same in terms of drivers due to the bsd cross-pollination.

[/q]a much broader selection of software in pkgsrc. [/q]

How much software do you need on a gateway? I hardly ever install anything other than maybe handful of software from ports on gateways.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Awesome work
by bradley on Thu 18th Oct 2012 03:38 in reply to "Awesome work"
bradley Member since:
2007-03-02

As for PF... I use FreeBSD and OpenBSD with PF for the firewall. I've been wanting to use NetBSD again which you can use PF, but it doesnt support my (ral0) wireless card. I do like pkgsrc... :-P

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Awesome work
by Lennie on Thu 18th Oct 2012 09:12 in reply to "Awesome work"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

OpenBSD/pf support for multiple cores is supposedly not so good. NetBSD version is supposed to scale better with multiple cores.

I haven't test it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Awesome work
by coreyography on Fri 19th Oct 2012 02:14 in reply to "Awesome work"
coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

Unless I was a dev, or a highly interested user willing to do testing, I'd give any new packet filter some time to mature and get some trial by fire. Not taking anything away from the NetBSD devs, and a multicore packet filter is a cool idea, but if it's for something critical (i.e., your continued employment depends on it) I wouldn't want to be the first to find any bugs.

Edited 2012-10-19 02:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Awesome work
by zima on Sat 20th Oct 2012 16:26 in reply to "Awesome work"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What coreyography says. Plus, unless one is really "into" ~firewalls and such, it's probably better to just use m0n0wall or pfsense in most cases - both of which give you pf on FreeBSD, with its hw support (and performance ...not that your gateway would be likely limited by it?)

Reply Parent Score: 2