Version 4.0 release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
50 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Version 4.0 release

Incomex
I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
raidframe,
and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.

I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
can't hardware raid
my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
drives in my
E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
and am left
mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.

This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
crappy i686 box
because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
get a lot of the
functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
can hack my box.

I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.

Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
this E450 with
no hacks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Marco Peereboom
We are accepting diffs.

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:44:37PM -0600, David B. wrote:

> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't hardware raid
> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> drives in my
> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> and am left
> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
>
> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> crappy i686 box
> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> get a lot of the
> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> can hack my box.
>
> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
>
> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> this E450 with
> no hacks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by Incomex
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't hardware raid
> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> drives in my
> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> and am left
> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
>
> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> crappy i686 box
> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> get a lot of the
> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> can hack my box.
>
> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
>
> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> this E450 with
> no hacks.

We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
being rude.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by Incomex
On 10/9/06, David B. <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't hardware raid
> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> drives in my
> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> and am left
> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.

Would you like some cheese?

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

StrongBad
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

>> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6  
>> months on
>> this E450 with
>> no hacks.
>
> We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> being rude.

Alternatively, David, you might try offering access on your nice E450  
box
to other developers who might need access in order to continue work on
such features.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
[hidden email]
303-443-7000 ext. 527

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

knitti
In reply to this post by Incomex
On 10/9/06, David B. <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> crappy i686 box
> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> get a lot of the
> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> can hack my box.
>
> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.

if you regret it that much running openbsd on this machine, you should
learn how to use one of the other os'. keeping them secure would of course
require you to do a bit more, but _come on_ i just can't see why you can
whine that much about a status quo, yet not making any effort to use the
better part of your hardware. otoh if your company can spend that much
on hardware idling for years without it being a problem, why don't just
fund one or two of the developers to do the task?


--knitti

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Teemu Schaabl
In reply to this post by Incomex
David B.([hidden email])@2006.10.09 15:44:37 -0600:

> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't hardware raid
> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> drives in my
> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> and am left
> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
>
> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> crappy i686 box
> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> get a lot of the
> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> can hack my box.
>
> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
>
> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> this E450 with
> no hacks.

stfu. please tell me you're working for ibm,

cheers
teemu
--
Don't be too proud of the technological
terror you have constructed -- D. Vader

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

ropers
In reply to this post by Greg Thomas-3
> Would you like some cheese?
>
> Greg

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MAYBE SPAM] Re: Version 4.0 release

Damian Wiest
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:59:29PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> > raidframe,
> > and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
> >
> > I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> > can't hardware raid
> > my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> > drives in my
> > E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> > and am left
> > mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
> >
> > This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> > crappy i686 box
> > because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> > get a lot of the
> > functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> > can hack my box.
> >
> > I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
> >
> > Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> > this E450 with
> > no hacks.
>
> We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> being rude.


Heh.  I've actually got an E450 at home myself that hasn't been setup yet.
It's got quad processors, a couple of gigs of RAM and one or two of the
disk expansion boards (with Symbios 2201, 2202 or 2204 cards).  
Do many people have these things?  I'm just wondering how much help I
could be to the project if I ran OpenBSD on the thing versus Solaris 10.

I'd suggest the original poster just put Solaris on the damn thing and
lock it down; maybe put an OpenBSD firewall in front.

-Damian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

RedShift
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
Theo de Raadt wrote:

>> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
>> raidframe,
>> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>>
>> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
>> can't hardware raid
>> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
>> drives in my
>> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
>> and am left
>> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
>>
>> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
>> crappy i686 box
>> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
>> get a lot of the
>> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
>> can hack my box.
>>
>> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
>>
>> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
>> this E450 with
>> no hacks.
>
> We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> being rude.
>
>
>

Actually I agree with David B. here. I know developing an OS is a huge
task and with nothing but security on your mind, building bridges seems
a trivial task compared to it. However having more than one processor is
rapidly becoming a commodity and not supporting enough hardware is a
death stab. If a 5 year old RAID controller is not supported, what can
be expected in the future? Yes I'm sure there isn't enough documentation
available, license disagreements, etc... but come on, it's 5 years old!
  You would think _somebody_ would at least make an attempt at it. I can
imagine OpenBSD being reduced to something that is used on embedded
devices. It's not really much for desktop (compared with other operating
systems) and without decent SMP support and a huge list of RAID
controllers, active use of OpenBSD in server environments could drop
rapidly. Even the most basic servers nowadays are equipped with a dual
core processor. If OpenBSD's performance/scalability doesn't improve
this is the most likely scenario.

Yes I'm pretty sure that OpenBSD features a lot of proper, decent and
intuitive code, but performance in some areas lacks tremendously.

I'm not saying OpenBSD is a bad operating system. Far from it. However I
would only use it for routers, firewalls, bridges, etc... Anything that
has to do with networking because after all, OpenBSD's networking is
great. Outside these areas OpenBSD is just too slow and doesn't support
enough hardware.

Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't really
float my boat. I only do some high level programming and I know nothing
about kernel internals. I use it where it fits me and equals customer
benefit. If it doesn't I need to search for something else. We are all
specialized in our field, you can't ask a butcher to do a heart
operation even if they both handle meat all the time.

Please note that this is all IMHO.

Glenn

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

StrongBad
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:36 PM, RedShift wrote:

>
> Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't  
> really float my boat.

All good points, Glenn. OpenBSD also accepts hardware gifts and cash  
as a means
of accelerating development on a given platform.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
[hidden email]
303-443-7000 ext. 527

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by RedShift
On 10/9/06, RedShift <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> >> raidframe,
> >> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
> >>
> >> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> >> can't hardware raid
> >> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> >> drives in my
> >> E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> >> and am left
> >> mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
> >>
> >> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> >> crappy i686 box
> >> because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> >> get a lot of the
> >> functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> >> can hack my box.
> >>
> >> I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
> >>
> >> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> >> this E450 with
> >> no hacks.
> >
> > We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> > effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> > being rude.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually I agree with David B. here. I know developing an OS is a huge
> task

You know this yet you whine.  Unbelievable.  You said it yourself in
your own words, "developing an OS is a huge task".  Provide diffs or
recruit someone who can.

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MAYBE SPAM] Re: Version 4.0 release

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by Damian Wiest
On 10/9/06, Damian Wiest <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:59:29PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> > > raidframe,
> > > and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
> > >
> > > I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> > > can't hardware raid
> > > my enterprise fiberchannel array, I can't hardware raid the majority of the
> > > drives in my
> > > E450, and because raidframe is so old and buggy, I can't raid5 any of it,
> > > and am left
> > > mirroring my 2 boot drives together, and 2 data drives together.
> > >
> > > This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> > > crappy i686 box
> > > because security is my primary issue.  If I went with another OS, I could
> > > get a lot of the
> > > functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pakistan
> > > can hack my box.
> > >
> > > I just can't see why SMP and hardware raid aren't supported on sparc64/II.
> > >
> > > Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6 months on
> > > this E450 with
> > > no hacks.
> >
> > We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> > effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> > being rude.
>
>
> Heh.  I've actually got an E450 at home myself that hasn't been setup yet.
> It's got quad processors, a couple of gigs of RAM and one or two of the
> disk expansion boards (with Symbios 2201, 2202 or 2204 cards).
> Do many people have these things?  I'm just wondering how much help I
> could be to the project if I ran OpenBSD on the thing versus Solaris 10.
>

I have one at work that was retired in 2002.  I've never had a chance
to install OpenBSD on it, it's quad processor but probably doesn't
have a RAID controller.  I haven't even had a chance to fire it up in
years.

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Bryan Irvine
In reply to this post by Incomex
> This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
> crappy i686 box

I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, but I'm sure Theo and
company could whip something up for you.

Just send another $125,000 check to:

Theo de Raadt
OpenBSD
812 23rd Ave SE
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 1N8

 ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

knitti
In reply to this post by RedShift
On 10/10/06, RedShift <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If a 5 year old RAID controller is not supported, what can
> be expected in the future? Yes I'm sure there isn't enough documentation
> available, license disagreements, etc... but come on, it's 5 years old!

it is that easy: if you can't use the os, don't use it. at least as long as you
aren't able to change to situation by either coding it, or donathing hardware
or $$$ to raise the developers interest in the particular device or issue


>   You would think _somebody_ would at least make an attempt at it.

famous last words.

> Even the most basic servers nowadays are equipped with a dual
> core processor.

well, the "most basic" (new) servers are i386/amd64, which has quite
usable smp support


> Yes I'm pretty sure that OpenBSD features a lot of proper, decent and
> intuitive code, but performance in some areas lacks tremendously.

i'm sure the developers will gladly accept your proper bug reports


> I'm not saying OpenBSD is a bad operating system. Far from it. However I
> would only use it for routers, firewalls, bridges, etc... Anything that
> has to do with networking because after all, OpenBSD's networking is
> great. Outside these areas OpenBSD is just too slow and doesn't support
> enough hardware.

sez who? a troll


--knitti

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MAYBE SPAM] Re: Version 4.0 release

Harpalus a Como
In reply to this post by Damian Wiest
I only use OpenBSD nowadays. I'll toy with other operating systems, but I
generally just stick to OpenBSD. It suits all of my needs. I can never
remember speed being a huge issue. I wish there was better SMP support, and
in your situation I'd also be wishing for better RAID support. The work so
far has been wonderful, though, and I don't think that the developers are
slacking off. If OpenBSD doesn't suit your needs, find something else. I'm
working on improving my coding skill so that perhaps one day I can make some
meaningful contributions to OpenBSD. Perhaps that'll never happen. But I'm
not going to waste everybody's time complaining on Misc, when it's clear the
developers are already working on various things with limited resources.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

K Kadow
In reply to this post by StrongBad
On 10/9/06, RedShift <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Actually I agree with David B. here. I know developing an OS is a huge
> task and with nothing but security on your mind, building bridges seems
> a trivial task compared to it. However having more than one processor is
> rapidly becoming a commodity and not supporting enough hardware is a
> death stab. If a 5 year old RAID controller is not supported, what can
> be expected in the future? Yes I'm sure there isn't enough documentation
> available, license disagreements, etc... but come on, it's 5 years old!

You chose to deploy Sparc64.
If you want decent support for your Sun hardware, maybe you should run
Sun's operating system?

There are many great security and performance features in Solaris 10.


>  You would think _somebody_ would at least make an attempt at it. I can
> imagine OpenBSD being reduced to something that is used on embedded
> devices. It's not really much for desktop (compared with other operating
> systems) and without decent SMP support and a huge list of RAID
> controllers, active use of OpenBSD in server environments could drop
> rapidly.

There is decent SMP support and a good sized list of RAID controllers,
on i386 and AMD64.  Not all "server environments" are built around Sun
Microsystems.


On 10/9/06, Damian Wiest <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've actually got an E450 at home myself that hasn't been setup yet.
> It's got quad processors, a couple of gigs of RAM and one or two of the
> disk expansion boards (with Symbios 2201, 2202 or 2204 cards).
> Do many people have these things?  I'm just wondering how much help I
> could be to the project if I ran OpenBSD on the thing versus Solaris 10.

I have an E450 chassis at home, but haven't made it functional.
I was going to donate it, but it lacks the DC-DC converters, plus the
shipping cost would be horrendous.

Kevin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MAYBE SPAM] Re: Version 4.0 release

Damian Wiest
In reply to this post by Damian Wiest
Sorry about the subject line.  The spam filter here flagged the message
and I keep forgetting to check to see if it changed the subject.

-Damian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

Bryan Irvine
In reply to this post by StrongBad
On 10/9/06, Jack J. Woehr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> >> Thanks at least for a very secure OS.  I've been online now for 6
> >> months on
> >> this E450 with
> >> no hacks.
> >
> > We welcome code submissions.  I think you have no idea at all how much
> > effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you are just
> > being rude.
>
> Alternatively, David, you might try offering access on your nice E450
> box
> to other developers who might need access in order to continue work on
> such features.


If someone was actually interested in doing so (despite Davis
repulsive email) I have an e250[1] that some interested developer
could *have*.  I'd need help with shipping though because these things
are HEAVY.

I could also set it up if some developer wanted to just access one remotely.

[1] I'm pretty sure the 250 and 450 are similar, though I could be wrong.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version 4.0 release

StrongBad
On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Bryan Irvine wrote:

> [1] I'm pretty sure the 250 and 450 are similar, though I could be  
> wrong.

Similar, but the 250 is typically "half a 450", two procs instead of  
four
and less of other resources, otherwise quite similar.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
[hidden email]
303-443-7000 ext. 527

123