OpenBSD AMD64 SMP in testing 40
agent dero writes "Naysayers beware, at the recent Calgary OpenBSD Hackathon, there has been some major improvements in OpenBSD's SMP support which was recently merged with -current. According to this recent article at undeadly.org the code is ready for testing, but the OpenBSD team could really use some permanent AMD64 SMP hardware for testing. Notable achievments include a kernel compile in around 80 seconds."
Re:really? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Once Linux gains (some) popularity, the geeks will most likely move on to HURD, OpenBeOS, and *BSD.
Re:really? (Score:5, Funny)
Posted on Mozilla on FreeBSD 5.2--a dead browser on a dead OS. Dead on.
Re:really? (Score:2)
Re:really? (Score:1, Troll)
Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
Imagine a distributed kernel compile with distcc. Or perhaps a beowulf cluster compile? Or is that only a Linux thing?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
No, distcc and clusters work with BSDs, and most other operating systems, too.
Re:BSD is one dead bitch (Score:3, Informative)
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article [internetnews.com], Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
You can read more about FreeBSD here [freebsd.org]
If you would like to try out a BSD, you can download: FreeBSD [freebsd.org], OpenBSD [openbsd.org], or NetBSD [netbsd.org]
Enjoy!
Re:BSD is one dead bitch (Score:3, Informative)
DragonflyBSD [dragonflybsd.org] ekkoBSD [ekkobsd.org] PicoBSD [freebsd.org]
Enjoy
Re: You forgot (Score:2)
The way I see it there are still going to be only three major BSDs though:
FreeBSD, the way I see it at least, will eventually be an ix86/amd64 only system with everything Linux does in it as well. Definately good for cheapservers right now, headed more for th
Re: You forgot (Score:2)
There aren't many people in any community who can claim to be as dedicated and talented at Matt Dillon or Theo de Raadt, and understaffing is a problem that I know the ekkoBSD and MirOS teams would like to solve.
Good for us (Score:2, Interesting)
Hope that such compile times on the developers' systems would result in kernels that wouldn't need a recompilation/replacement for years on systems in production
Re:Good for us (Score:2)
Maybe this is just me, but what would ever cause you to need to rebuild your kernels once they were in place on an OpenBSD system?
Nothing, once the kernel is _built_ to your needs on an OpenBSD machine, you _really_ don't need to recompile it, ever.
Re:Good for us (Score:2)
It certainly might not be the case with openBSD.
Hope this doesn't sound like flamebait, but another OS, that is the favorite of many a
Re:Good for us (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, looking at it another way, if you are a user tracking -stable, so as to stay up-to-date with security and stability patches, you should be recompiling the OpenBSD kernel (and then some) a lot more often than never.
Re:Good for us (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe from security point of view... And if that box performs just one function or two you don't need to touch it. But adding new devices and features may need it. And bugs lurk there as well.
80 seconds, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
andrey
Re:80 seconds, eh? (Score:1)
Theo would love the plan9 compiler, if it wasn't so poorly licensed.
I don't really see any reason to have brought up the plan9 c compiler really, it's a dead issue until the owners actually open it up.
1554980 bytes (Score:2)
plan9% ls -l 9pccpu
--rwxrwxr-x M 106460 andrey andrey 1554980 Jun 27 13:23 9pccpu
1554980 bytes
eee, I remember back in the days when it was less than that
--rwxrwxr-x M 9 sys sys 1485859 Feb 17 20:23 9pccpu
8s to compile, 15s to boot
if only I was allowed to use it to make weapons of mass destruction I could rule the world !!
Re:1554980 bytes (Score:2)
Re:1554980 bytes (Score:2)
last time I looked, the NT kernel used external binaries to provide device drivers etc.
Re:1554980 bytes (Score:2)
modular drivers have been suggested, experimented with etc.
but when a kernel takes 8 seconds to compile and 15 seconds to boot it doesn't seem so bad
if you are feeling lucky
mk 'CONF=customkernel' && cat 9customkernel >