On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:54:38 +0200, lukaswu wrote:


>>> The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is
>>> IO efficiency- it is really sloooow.
>>
>> Really? From what outhouse wall did you read that?
>
> From www.openbsd.org? Or maybe from the wallpainting which says:
> synchronous filesystems are ALWAYS slower though recommended by OBSD
> team? Cant remember.

So in your mind a little bit slower is sloooow? And you really prefer
asynchronous disk IO because you just love running fsck?

>>> And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.
>>
>> How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
>> 10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.
>
> I mentioned facts and limits. So whats your point?

Just what do you really think that scalability means?

>>> PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
>>> mean
>>
>> Really, with the install sets on a server the entire OS goes onto HDD
>> in less than 5 minutes. Makes me fall to sleep waiting.
>>
> Good for you. Not all install goes from a cutting edge disk and server-
> in OBSD usually it's oposite, which you should know as an experienced
> OBSD admin/user/expert pretty aware of hardware compatibility issues.

My last install was yesterday on an 8 year old machine with a P233MMX
CPU, 32MB memory and a HDD which does file IO at about 3.5MB/sec. It
still took less than 5 minutes.

In over 8 years of use of OpenBSD I have never encountered a single
hardware compatibility issue. But then I don't use winmodems or
winprinters either.