FreeBSD 8.1 Released 46
hsn and other readers pointed out that FreeBSD 8.1 has been released. "This is the second release from the 8-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 8.0 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: zfsloader added; zpool version of ZFS subsystem updated to version 14; NFSv4 ACL support in UFS and ZFS; support added to cp(1), find(1), getfacl(1), mv(1), and setfacl(1) utilities; UltraSPARC IV/IV+, SPARC64 V support; SMP support in PowerPC G5; BIND 9.6.2-P2..." ... and much more. See the release notes summary and the details.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know what you're talking about. I see one on my screen, and it even says "frist psot" in it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want a joke. I want OS support for the Elan framebuffers in my R4000 Indigo and R4400 Indigo 2.
That's nice, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's nice to see they've got zfsloader in there by default, now. It was otherwise a huge pain to get ZFS to be booted from - you basically had to build your own installer and set up everything manually. Quite the time consuming task.
Unfortunately, I don't see any mention of these changes:
* "improved stability for ZFS". Sure, it supports pool version 14! What the fuck does that mean, really, when "bare minimum 4GB RAM" was a requirement for 8.0 to get it even remotely stable (some tuning required)? I don't care if it runs for months without locking the system. It's still locking the system.
* "decreased memory use for ZFS". It's not even doing deduplication in 8.0 RELEASE yet using 3GB of RAM at an idle load is not unheard of.
* Why so quiet on the USB front? Nice to see they got ralink devices added, but that does little for the fact that USB is almost completely unreliable in 8.x. Just take a look at the USB mailing list - problem after problem that's the same (USB has many, many timing/boot/detection issues in 8.x), with the seeming consensus being "we don't care, it works for me".
FreeBSD needs to fix those things or forever be relegated to amateur hour. Seems "quality things that work" gets relegated to "superior design". That's all fine and good, but if you've got to rape an ape just to get the damn thing to work as designed due to implementation flaws, it's essentially worthless.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree, and besides all this stuff they need to provide an easy way to install it using a PXE server. They have a bugged bootloader (BTX?) since 7.2 so I still have to use 7.1's loader to deploy any new versions. On top of that, I have to uncompress/untar/cpio a bunch of archive just to get access to the actual installer config file... and do the whole process again to get a disk image bootable from PXE.
Re: (Score:1)
What the fuck does that mean, really, when "bare minimum 4GB RAM" was a requirement for 8.0 to get it even remotely stable (some tuning required)?
I really do not know what kind of orifice you are pulling it from. I set 8.0 up with ZFS on a machine with 3 gigs of RAM, did not tune anything and there were zilch problems with neither stability nor speed. Yes, it is "works for me", but hell, it does work for me. In many configurations and with hardware over three years old. And single core processors.
* "decreased memory use for ZFS". It's not even doing deduplication in 8.0 RELEASE yet using 3GB of RAM at an idle load is not unheard of.
For some odd reason then it's been working for me in my home server with 2 gigs of RAM (single core, DDR), no tuning and with extra to spare for daemons and
Re: (Score:2)
In the last 3 months, I've had 3 opensolaris related FreeBSD system crashes on multiple systems. I've had two OOM related system locks. Yes, this is on 8.0 RELEASE, on very common 3-year-old to current hardware from SuperMicro, with controllers, etc. specifically picked due to their "good support" under FreeBSD. It's the case both with and without special "tuning", and the system load is light (ie multicore systems with a load average around/under .5). The hardware has all been verified to be error-free.
Sur
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting... we got some new SuperMicro machines to test to sell at work.
God help you if you try to enable the RAID controller. It won't ever boot again until you wipe the CMOS.
Perhaps SMC isn't as reliable as you might think they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The machines in question were IBM x335 and x336 1U rackmount machines.
That is really, really damn interesting. We've got two machines that are very similar (x335) running FreeBSD still - one is at 6.2 (runs our management VLAN services - SNMP trap, log analysis, etc.). It's got a low CPU/RAM utilization, yet it has locked up numerous times - sometimes as often as twice a day, but usually somewhere in the 2-3 month range. I've been unable to trace the problem to anything, though it's my suspicion that it may be the single channel SATA controller. It very well may be, but at th
Re: (Score:1)
ZFS reliability on 32-bit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a ZFS expert, but IIUC it's simply not possible to have stable production quality ZFS on 32 bit machines. This has nothing to do with FreeBSD, the original Solaris codebase just wasn't designed for it. There are places where the code manipulates 64 bit constructs in what it assumes are atomic operations. That assumption is often invalid on a 32 bit machine. Also the code is written assuming that it has a significant amount of VM to play with.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect the FreeBSD port t
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty soon, a minor Linux kernel update won't make the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, although the number of (non-Ubuntu) Linux machines deployed outside of people's parent's basements exceeds fBSD and Ubuntu combined, which is kind of a built-in interest base. My expectation is that most smart people try to stay abreast of trends in the industry they work in ;)
Re: (Score:1)
What the hell are you talking about? Apple-haters have almost completely taken over the comments section to any Apple article. What a lame attempt at karma-whoring on your part.
Re: (Score:1)
Big problem with ethernet adapter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the ATTANSIC L1 on one of my systems, and it works great on FreeBSD 8.1.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)