Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Unix Software Upgrades BSD

DragonFly BSD 3.0 Released 102

An anonymous reader writes with word of the release earlier this week, after eight months of development, of DragonFly BSD 3.0. The release includes improved scalability through finer-grained locking, improvements to the HAMMER file system in low-memory configurations, and a TrueCrypt-compatible disk encryption system. DragonFly is an installable system, but it can also be run live from CD, DVD, or USB key.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DragonFly BSD 3.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Not the big one (Score:5, Informative)

    by laffer1 ( 701823 ) <luke AT foolishgames DOT com> on Sunday February 26, 2012 @08:18AM (#39163243) Homepage Journal

    If you're writing stories about DragonFly, then you want to cover all of it's distributed systems. The whole point of DragonFly is getting it ready for clustering. That's what Matt Dillon is into.

    Some of the features of HAMMER & HAMMER2 are duplicated in other file systems, but most of them have much less friendly licenses. Even ZFS is under CDDL, which isn't terrible but precludes it from being used in Linux (the kernel). From my perspective, HAMMER could be the file system that everyone could use due to the license.

    HAMMER is clearly the biggest feature of DragonFly that originated there. I think that constitutes coverage.

  • Re:Will Try it (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2012 @09:27AM (#39163375)

    wget --limit-rate=20k --continue

    If you don't have wget, get it. You can get it for pretty much anything. Linux. Other Unixes. Windows. OS/2 Warp. Macs. Android. 20 year old Amigas. Atari STs. Commodore 64s.

  • Re:Will Try it (Score:5, Informative)

    by kestasjk ( 933987 ) * on Sunday February 26, 2012 @10:11AM (#39163591) Homepage
    No-one (very few) care about whether BSD is "genuine UNIX" or "genuinely free software".

    I administer three UNIX servers, all FreeBSD, and here's what I can tell you about the differences between it and Linux and Windows Server (which are also decent server OSes):
    • It's free
    • BSD is really simple; the kernel and OS are maintained by the same group, so they go step by step.
    • It doesn't change much; this is as much a great thing for servers as it is a terrible thing for everything else.
    • The ports system. This is a really big plus for BSD; I've tried many *nix distros and none are quite as consistent and reliable (for servers) as the ports system
    • pf. Although originally an OpenBSD thing this is a firewall which has a beautifully simple syntax. It's just so easy to express solid firewall rules, with queuing and everything. (Tbh iptables is probably at least as configurable, but last I checked pf definitely offered more power / learning-effort.)
    • Good community: You'll almost always find the solution to your problem, and it'll almost always be tailored to your BSD installation, rather than this or that flavor of Linux.

    YMMV, Im sure many people here maintain great Linux servers, but for my humble needs I really like my three FreeBSD servers.

  • Re:Will Try it (Score:4, Informative)

    by rev0lt ( 1950662 ) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @10:39AM (#39163783)
    FreeBSD changes quite a lot between major releases, but usually doesn't break/remake what already exists. There are some few exceptions.
    The ports system is also available on Linux; The pkgsrc system (that is used by DragonFly and NetBSD) is available for both Linux and Solaris.
    PF is an awesome user-friendly firewall, but it has its limitations on high traffic systems (pf isn't multi-core friendly). Probably NPF will be an option soon.
    The documentation is existing, up-to-date and usually accurate.
    For servers, there are 4 key awesome technology components ATM - Jails (Linux has namespaces, but I don't know if it's funcional yet), CARP (pf-based redundancy), ZFS and HAST (somewhat equivalent do DRDB).
  • by rev0lt ( 1950662 ) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @11:13AM (#39164015)
    If I recall correctly, there were some major conflicts regarding the design decisions of FreeBSD 5.0 branch. If I recall correctly, Dillon wanted to continue the 4.X work and gradually remove the giant lock from kernel, and other developers wanted to rewrite/re-engineer the kernel torwards multiprocessor support.
    Dillon left the team and started working on DragonFlyBSD.
    It is interesting, all this years later, that it seems Dillon was right. According to the Dfly 2.13 benchmarks, FreeBSD and DFly are close enough to be considered equivalents, and with DFly taking a lead in some tests. AFAIK PostgreSQL isn't threaded so for at least process-based applications, both Dillon's vision and the FreeBSD team turned out to be equivalent. (But the "breaking of things" and funcionality that started with the 5.0 branch was a huge long-term benefit, as it forced the reimplementation of key infrastructure components - network, storage, etc).
  • Re:Not the big one (Score:5, Informative)

    by rgbrenner ( 317308 ) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @11:48AM (#39164195)

    Your benchmark compares HAMMER, ZFS, UFS, and EXT, when really HAMMER is most similar to ZFS. And in the benchmark, those two are pretty similar. The difference between the two: ZFS expects virtually unlimited RAM and will consume GBs easily; HAMMER will work with as little as 256MB of RAM.

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.