DragonFly 2.4 Released 73
electrostaticcarrot writes "DragonFly — that fourth major BSD — has had its 2.4 release. The 'most invasive change' is the addition and usage of a DevFS for /dev; building on this, drives are now also recognized by serial number (along with /etc/devtab for aliases) as listed in /dev/serno. This is also the first release with a x86-64 ISO, stable but with limited pkgsrc support. Other larger changes include a ported and feature-extended (with full hotplug and port multiplier support) AHCI driver (and SILI driver based on it) originally taken from OpenBSD, major NFS changes, and HAMMER updates. A pkgsrc GIT mirror has also been set up and put in use to make future pkgsrc updates quicker and smoother. Here are two of the mirrors."
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, that is the MOTD in the Dragon Fly 2.4 release.
Maybe in 5 years I will buy x64. When Win 32S no longer works on Win 3.1
very nice BSD distribution (Score:3)
I've used DragonFly to build some appliances for remote network monitoring, like having something as solid as FreeBSD 4.x from which it was forked but with ability to compile latest BSD packages and small footprint. I've kind of lost faith in FreeBSD after 5.x and 6.x shakiness under high load, maybe they've fixed it.
That said, I've yet to use Hammer and wonder if/when it's production stable like some of the other parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Thor uses Linux. Stability only requires "not flying off the handles". Thankfully, Kanye does not have his own "Hammer" brand.
Re:very nice BSD distribution (Score:5, Informative)
I've never experienced "shakiness" under high load on 6.x, but 7.x saw the introduction of a much improved SMP, and a new scheduler which saw dramatic performance increases under many usage types.
Early 5.x was a bit flaky, though it was fairly stable by the end of the line. 6.x was late in coming though, so many were eager to migrate. 5.x is in many ways too old to be a valid comparison anymore though, as I don't see many complaints about linux kernel 2.4.x even though they had their own set of issues. Every OS I've ever used has had it's own sets of gotchas, but stability on BSD has never been one with proper planning.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't get 5.x to install. 6.x and 7.x have been very stable fore me under high load. That being said, from what I hear the problem requires an 8+ CPU system and most/all of the CPUs under high load. I've only got single and dual core systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had no load issues with 6x or 7x so far, though I have it primarily on quad-core boxes under moderate load (firewalls and such).
I should look into this "shakiness" and find out what it entails, and if there are some things i need to consider if I plan to scale. I might have just lucked out.
Re: (Score:2)
I use it on 8 and 12 systems, under constantly high load, and haven't experienced instability.
Not saying it doesn't exist, but this is the first I've even heard of such a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, from what I hear the problem requires an 8+ CPU system and most/all of the CPUs under high load.
Our 8-core database server has been marching along happily under a heavy load for many months now.
Re:very nice BSD distribution (Score:5, Informative)
HAMMER is considered production-stable now. It was usable a year ago and what few bugs existed were found and fixed since then. Performance is much improved though we are still not happy with small file lookups, and fsyncs are still quite costly, but there isn't much we can do about it without some major on-media changes and those will probably not be made until after the cluster work ramps up. In anycase, HAMMER has been the default filesystem for a while. There is really no other choice for DragonFly (just as ZFS is the only real choice for FreeBSD) when it comes to dealing with today's huge drives. UFS (and UFS2) don't cut it.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Go Matt go. Your decades of providing truly great software do not go unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yo AC, I'm happy for you and I'm going to let you finish, but that's what x64 said about DragonFly 3 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And where, pray tell, did you get THAT load of tripe? I'm a BSD fan and all, but to think that NT will switch to a BSD base, is absurd, Android less so, but still ridiculous, and Mac I can't see switching from it's Mach/FreeBSD hybrid that works so well for it.
Re: (Score:1)
You got it all wrong. He meant to say they will all "borrow" the code for their own use (since any BSD operating system is using the BSD license).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
devfs? and the next release will switch to udev presumably?
Additionally it will be called 'Dreamy DragonFly,' and feature a suspiciously familiar-looking brown GNOME theme....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't it funny that at the very moment there is a discussion about including devtmpfs into the Linux kernel to get rid of udev?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Fourth major BSD? (Score:5, Informative)
Mac OS X doesn't count as a BSD?
No. Mac OS X doesn't use a *BSD-derived kernel and is therefore not a *BSD. Mac OS X's kernel is called 'XNU' and it's based on Mach 3.0. It does have a BSD subsystem in the kernel, and the userland is a mix of BSD and GNU utilities, but it's not *BSD. (The BSD subsystem itself is derived from FreeBSD 5.x.) I guess you could say Mac OS X has stuff that is derived from BSD, but on whole I'd have to say OS X is something other than BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
PC-BSD /is/ FreeBSD with some extra userland tools added on. I'm not sure it's worth calling another BSD. The rest at least have significant differences at lower levels of the OS, and not just a few extra packages installed.
Re: (Score:2)
PC-BSD is *not* a different version or a fork. It is, just like ByOhTek said, just FreeBSD with some additional user tools.
Even 7.1 still identifies as BSD 7, and they are quite clear about it in their documentation. It *is* FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac OS X doesn't count as a BSD?
It's Mach with bits of BSD and GNU welded on, and good bits of BSD completely broken (kqueue).
A Good Release (Score:1)
I'm glad to see another fine release by their team. It is really amazing what just a handful of people have accomplished with DragonFly. Great work guys!
How close are we coming to blending Linux and BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not up on the beastie's progress these days, but reading about the /dev filesystem reminds me of the penguin. Does this bring them closer together? Are things coming closer together in other ways as well?
I think it would be phenomenal to be able to select between Ubuntu Linux and Ubuntu BSD, for example.
Debian GNU/* (Score:1, Informative)
Then select among Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd.
http://www.debian.org/ports/
Re: (Score:2)
Fear (Score:3, Funny)
that fourth major BSD â" has had its 2.4 release
Six more BSDs and they will officially go from "mindless roving undead" to "collectively intelligent zombie horde."
Can someone enlighten me why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Licensing? From Wiki:
"The licenses [BSD] have few restrictions compared to other free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License or even the default restrictions provided by copyright, putting it relatively closer to the public domain."
"The GPL is the most popular and well-known example of the type of strong copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft."
If you tell me I can do what ever the hell I want to with your code when I work on it I'm more apt to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you tell me I can do what ever the hell I want to with your code when I work on it I'm more apt to work on code than if you tell me I have to follow your rules when I use it.
Maybe *you* would be more likely to work on the code, but that's not very relevant. Most of the heavy lifting in Linux kernel development is done by corporations.
If you analyze the situation with some basic game theory, it's clear that corporations are unlikely to publicly license the source to any of their significant development efforts unless GPL-style restrictions go along with it. They don't want their competitors taking their hard work and going proprietary with it. (I'm talking about writing new code
Basic game theory: *always* publish tactical code. (Score:2)
Basic game theory: *always* publish tactical code.
You cite "basic game theory" as a reason to not publish code, but in fact "basic game theory" dictates that you *always* publish non-strategic code; this accomplishes a number of things for you:
- community good will
- you offload ongoing maintenance costs
- you establish your interfaces and data structures as a de-facto standard, disadvantaging your competitors
The first some companies have decided they can live without; however, if you want a ready pool of peo
Re: (Score:2)
If you define "basic game theory" as game theory reduced to whatever extent necessary to yield a single dominating strategy against all eventualities, then I agree with you.
It has been a presumption of intellectual property law that no intellectual property claim endures forever (at least until Mickey Mouse discovered the non-convergence of infinite series). I know very few claims to IP that lapse in less than a century. So, clearly, over a sufficiently long term, a company that continues to invest in the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The major BSD systems (FreeBSD*, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonflyBSD) have all been carefully designed from the original 386BSD codebase. Originally, there were just FreeBSD and NetBSD, based off of the 386BSD codebase. Developer conflicts within NetBSD caused a split, spawning OpenBSD. A similar thing happen
Re: (Score:1)
At some later point they might end up open sourcing it again result
Re: (Score:2)
The Linux kernel has loads of forks. Every actively maintained Linux distribution has its own fork of the kernel with a particular set of configuration changes, build tweaks, and source code patches. Additionally, many high-profile kernel hackers maintain their own public kernel tree to vet or test patches that might eventually make it up into the mainline kernel.
BSD has only a handful of forks by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly ancient history. Free and NetBSD split off from the original Jolix project (NetBSD split off early; the FreeBSD guys tried to work within the system until it was unfeasible), OpenBSD started up when Theo de Raadt got kicked from NetBSD, and DragonFly happened with the whole FreeBSD 5.x Royal Mongolian Goatfuck. They never had one benevolent dictator like Torvalds or RMS, so personality conflicts had the potential to split systems.
Re:Can someone enlighten me why (Score:5, Informative)
BSD distributions tend to be full vertical integrations. Linux distros tend to be horizontal integrations. There are, in fact, dozens of linux distros in various states of repair or disrepair. It's very easy for anyone to slap stuff together and call it a linux distro. It isn't so easy to slap together a BSD system and call IT a distro.
The various BSDs focus on different things though they do try to stay within shouting distance of each other. FreeBSD focuses on performance, OpenBSD on security, NetBSD on portability, and DragonFly focuses on a lofty filesystem clustering & SSI goal.
The HAMMER filesystem is a major stepping stone towards that goal. There is really no reason to use DragonFly if you do not also intend to use HAMMER, so it is probably lost on people who expect a pretty GUI and just want to play with DragonFly a little in a VirtualBox or VMWare or other VM with a tiny little virtual disk (VirtualBox doesn't even implement proper disk synchronization!). Real DragonFly consumers use it primarily for the filesystem, secondarily for the stability, and are willing to spend the extra time tuning the typical server applications that any UNIX-like OS can run in the mean time.
The differentiation here is that while something like ZFS focuses on redundancy, it does so using a monolithic filesystem model which is still vulnerable to software failures. HAMMER is designed to evolve into the core for DragonFly's clustering goals... HAMMER does not focus on individual filesystem redundancy but instead focuses on the components that will be needed to make the future multi-master clustering work efficiently. This also means that HAMMER must be rock solid and essentially bug free, which is a major task unto itself.
Thus HAMMER's mirroring components are designed to support live streaming replication (with near real-time backups being a convenient side effect) at the logical layer (HAMMER's B-Tree) as well as designed to become the bulk data transport component for the future clustering. This is very different from the discrete snapshots which numerous other filesystems support, and also very different from the traditional block-level mirroring slap-on model used to implement (for example) numerous Linux redundancy solutions.
In order to realize this multi-year goal we still need to provide what is basically a complete system solution in the mean time, otherwise there simply would not be enough users to keep the system well tested. And, unfortunately, keeping all the other components of a major distribution up-to-date take a huge amount of time just by themselves, but there's really no other way to do it. Politics make it virtually impossible to make the necessary changes to core OS structural mechanics required for the goal using someone else's distribution, so we have our own.
I've been around enough to know that no software lasts forever. Algorithms survive the test of time, but actual software typically does not. Small monolithic programs tend to survive the test of time too, simply because they are easier to port. A great deal of the linux infrastructure today is not small or monolithic and while it provides a very valuable service to its users it is also extremely vulnerable to obsolescence. If a linux distro dies all the work that went into it also tends to disappear. If a BSD distro dies the components are at least small and compact enough to survive in other forms. So in that respect the point of doing it should be obvious.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
HAMMER is designed to evolve into the core for DragonFly's clustering goals...
How is this 2nd goal coming along?
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious. Are you the same guy who wrote DICE, a C compiler for the Amiga?
Thanks,
Dave
Yes, it's the same Matt Dillon (Score:1)
Yes it's the cool Amiga stuff Matt Dillon [backplane.com]. I still remember getting DICE on two Amiga Shoper coverdisks and the ever useful FMS [aminet.net] (thanks Matt!). It's interesting to note that Dave Jones [codemonkey.org.uk] (who later tweaked FMS) is a Red Hat Linux kernel hacker.
Re:Can someone enlighten me why (Score:5, Informative)
..why there are so many BSD variants while the linux kernel only has one?
Because BSDs are operating systems and linux is just a kernel. If you look at distrowatch, you will realise that there are HUNDREDS of Linux distributions.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems [wikipedia.org]
Virtualization (Score:2)
How well does it work under virtualization? I've tried it in the past with various versions of virtual box and didn't have a lot of success. I know part of it was due to vbox not being complete enough but that was because DragonFly was using some older not well supported "chips".
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting factoids-
Host: IBM T40 laptop with 1GB RAM. running FreeBSD 7.1-RC1. Guests: FreeBSD 7.1-RC1, (two VMs) NetBSD 4.0.1 OpenBSD 4.4 DragonFlyBSD 2.0.1-RELEASE. QEMU version 0.9.1. AQEMU version 0.5 (01/09/2008)
I'm working on using it for BSD Professional Certification lab exams.
---
Jim B.
DragonFly=Kernel-based-clustering (Score:2, Informative)
Most people commenting here are not clearly aware why there is DragonFly BSD, how it is different from the other BSD/etc.
In my view, DragonFly BSD is unique, timely and exceptionally forward thinking system.
You can see these days somewhat incoherent approaches to scalability in Google MapReduce, Apache Hadoop, etc -- basically rewritting existing technologies such that with less functionality and new code the processing can be scaled
across multiple computers at the same time.
Commercial offerings such as Ter
torrent? (Score:1)
OpenBSD and Ubuntu do not seem to offer them either.
I may not be able to host a mirror or contribute much money, but I can leave a torrent running for weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
http://torrent.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:2)
from the OpenBSD FAQ [openbsd.org]:
3.3 - Does OpenBSD provide an ISO image for download?
Starting with OpenBSD 4.2, for select platforms, yes!
Users of the alpha, amd64, hppa, i386, macppc, sparc and sparc64 platforms can now download and install ISO image which can be used to create a CD-ROM that can boot and install all of OpenBSD.
Note, this ISO is not the same as the official CD set. These images are for single platforms, and do not include any of the pre-compiled packages, stickers, or artwork that the official CD set