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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Not the big one (Score:4, Interesting)

    by laffer1 ( 701823 ) <luke@ f o o l i s h g a m> on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:49AM (#39163169) Homepage Journal

    This release is interesting, but the rest of the year is dedicated to HAMMER2 and that will be the real story with DragonFly next. Most of the work on this release was incremental. Some interesting benchmarks were posted against FreeBSD in the last few months for PostgreSQL. There was some coverage on OSNews on this []

  • good guy; bad choice (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Matt Dillon's a fairly bright guy who made the mistake in the mid-'90s of trying to get involved with the bunch of elitist has-beens on the FreeBSD core team. The reason the BSDs have been festering for the past decade is that there is and never has been any interest in properly documenting and welcoming contributions - the only way you can really make a contribution is to play the sycophant to one of the core team and act as their personal ego stroker until they act as your mentor, moulding you into a less

    • 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).
    • The reason the BSDs have been festering for the past decade

      As a FreeBSD user since 3.4, I resent that statement. Just recently I was trying to get a FreeBSD domU working on XenServer... 7.x was unusable; 8.x was a little better but still unusable/unstable.. but 9.0 works and has been stable (with a couple of minor problems). It's only 2012, and FreeBSD already has near production-quality virtualization. FreeBSD is really on the cutting edge of this 'virtualization' tech...

      And just a couple of major versions ago, we got BINARY UPDATES.

      Things are getting really excit

      • by adolf ( 21054 )

        As an off-and-on FreeBSD user since prior to version 3, I must say that the whole tree has been full of new and interesting things that actually for well over a decade...and that Linux still reigns as king of the "free" *NIX crowd.

        I cut my teeth on *nix in the mid-90s using the FreeBSD shell machines at the former (while I myself had a modem and Telemate under MS-DOS), and while I was a customer of theirs they slowly started introducing Linux shells but their Linux boxen were never as stable or featu

        • My post was written tongue-in-cheek... I've been using FBSD on my servers for years, and on my desktop since 3.4 until 6 months ago. Honestly, trying to get FreeBSD working on Xen was the first time I really wondered about where the project was going. They're 10+ years late to the party.. for a server OS to miss the move to virtualized servers... Other than that, FreeBSD is a great server OS.

          The installer in 9.0 is disappointing.. they switched from sysinstall to a new installer "bsdinstall".. but bsdinstal

          • by adolf ( 21054 )

            Everything you say is true, but: Compared to Gentoo, FreeBSD can be a joy to operate. :)

            I never toyed with Redhat or its derivatives, due to an ephemeral dislike for RPM that has yet to fade.

            • Everything you say is true, but: Compared to Gentoo, FreeBSD can be a joy to operate. :)


              I've noticed Gentoo isn't used much on servers either

              I never toyed with Redhat or its derivatives, due to an ephemeral dislike for RPM that has yet to fade.

              There are some big downsides to RHEL.. I'm not a huge fan of the distro.. but 10 years of support(!)

              It's pretty much the only distro that is supported for a decent amount of time. FBSD: 2 years. Debian: 2 years. Fedora/SUSE: 1-1.5 years. Who wants to upgrade their server every 1-2 years?

              Ubuntu LTS is 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server.. but they focus so much on the desktop that I have some doubts that it would be a good server choice.

              • by adolf ( 21054 )

                I used to use Gentoo on a mail server just because Portage was a rapidly-updated system at the time and it let me keep the small handful of world-facing software that it used updated easily and quickly

                But without care and feeding, it falls down on its face after a few years of piecemeal updates. It eventually became easier to migrate to a whole different system than to perform all of the myriad of weird, seemingly unrelated system updates that break -everything- if they're not installed in the right order.

  • The DFBSD Goals page [] is now empty. Hmm.

    I seem to recall that at one point the goal was an OS that ran as a single OS image across multiple machines []. Memory, processes, storage, etc. was unified into a single OS image. Is that still a DFBSD goal?

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's