Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Solaris 10 on July APC mag DVD

Reply
Thread Tools

Solaris 10 on July APC mag DVD

 
 
Lawrence D’Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:38:42 +1200, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
>> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ive also tried OpenBSD as a webserver, but that job really belongs to
>>>FreeBSD

>>
>> How did they differ in terms of appropriateness for Web serving?

>
>For my humble POS website, not a great deal, but for anything above 3
>hits(thats total not per day), OpenBSD has too much overhead, and is
>'slower' than FreeBSD In fact the NZNOG in hamilton had a lecture on this
>very subject and they showed (with lots of pretty graphs) that which
>everyone had already assumed


Why is there that much difference in overhead? Isn't this something you
can control?

I keep thinking of the *BSDs as being no more different from each other
than different Linux distros...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence DOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:38:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
>> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ive also tried OpenBSD as a webserver, but that job really belongs to
>>>FreeBSD

>>
>> How did they differ in terms of appropriateness for Web serving?

>
>OpenBSD would be better if security is more important than scalability,
>and your web apps are fairly vanilla (due to chrooting complexities etc).


Where do these compexities come from--are they embedded in the kernel,
or is simply a matter of how the applications are configured?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2005
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:14:08 +1200, Lawrence DOliveiro wrote:

>>OpenBSD would be better if security is more important than scalability,
>>and your web apps are fairly vanilla (due to chrooting complexities etc).

>
> Where do these compexities come from--are they embedded in the kernel, or
> is simply a matter of how the applications are configured?


OpenBSD have their own more secure fork of Apache and run it chrooted by
default. It just means that some CGI scripts or Apache modules need to be
tweaked a little to run properly. Usually not too big a deal apparently.

I don't have many examples because I just use OpenBSD for firewalling and
sometimes mail/dns - I currently use Debian for webservers.

Installing a web app from ports or packages should mean that it works
properly on OpenBSD.

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:12:50 +1200, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:38:42 +1200, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
>>> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ive also tried OpenBSD as a webserver, but that job really belongs to
>>>>FreeBSD
>>>
>>> How did they differ in terms of appropriateness for Web serving?

>>
>>For my humble POS website, not a great deal, but for anything above 3
>>hits(thats total not per day), OpenBSD has too much overhead, and is
>>'slower' than FreeBSD In fact the NZNOG in hamilton had a lecture on this
>>very subject and they showed (with lots of pretty graphs) that which
>>everyone had already assumed

>
> Why is there that much difference in overhead? Isn't this something you
> can control?
>
> I keep thinking of the *BSDs as being no more different from each other
> than different Linux distros...


The overhead comes from OpenBSD's focus, traffic is more closely
scrutinised by OpenBSD than FreeBSD and thats your overhead
(and thats about as technical as I get

The differing BSDs are similar, but different
I posted it in a different thread a wee whiles back,
but.. key things.. If it compiles on one BSD that doesnt mean it will
compile on all of them
FreeBSD's focus is more about ease of use, and file transfer abilities
(which it manages in spades)
Most of the services you run on FreeBSD can be run in jail()'s which is
similar to chroot, except you have to cal it somehow

But I'm not really an expert


--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D’Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:12:50 +1200, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
>> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:38:42 +1200, Lawrence Dâ?ôOliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net>,
>>>> Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ive also tried OpenBSD as a webserver, but that job really belongs to
>>>>>FreeBSD
>>>>
>>>> How did they differ in terms of appropriateness for Web serving?
>>>
>>>For my humble POS website, not a great deal, but for anything above 3
>>>hits(thats total not per day), OpenBSD has too much overhead, and is
>>>'slower' than FreeBSD In fact the NZNOG in hamilton had a lecture on this
>>>very subject and they showed (with lots of pretty graphs) that which
>>>everyone had already assumed

>>
>> Why is there that much difference in overhead? Isn't this something you
>> can control?
>>
>> I keep thinking of the *BSDs as being no more different from each other
>> than different Linux distros...

>
>The overhead comes from OpenBSD's focus, traffic is more closely
>scrutinised by OpenBSD than FreeBSD and thats your overhead
>(and thats about as technical as I get


In Linux, there are two basic mechanisms for controlling network
traffic: TCP wrappers (allowing/denying incoming connections based on
domain names or IP addresses) and iptables (a much more powerful but
lower-level mechanism that lets you specify powerful rules based on
inspecting individual packet contents). By the way, I believe the
iptables concept (and maybe even some code) is taken straight from *BSD.

But these mechanisms don't incur any overhead if you don't use them. So
you could set up iptables to tightly control traffic to your Web server,
but it wouldn't have any noticeable impact on SSH access, just for
example.

The point is, in Linux you don't choose between distros because one
offers tighter security but greater network processing overhead. All
Linux distros have similar capabilities in this regard, the tradeoff is
controlled by you--it's just a matter of how you set things up.

>Most of the services you run on FreeBSD can be run in jail()'s which is
>similar to chroot, except you have to cal it somehow


jail(2) seems to be a much more powerful system call than the more
traditional chroot(2) in Linux. Though somebody mentioned that there
was, of course, work on an implementation of jail(2) for Linux (damn, I
can't find the reference in Google Groups).

By the way, I came up with the following rhyme:

There were BSD brothers three
There was Open, Net and Free
Open's locked down
Net's ported around
and Free's there to serve you and me

Well, I didn't say it was _funny_ ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005

>
> In Linux, there are two basic mechanisms for controlling network
> traffic: TCP wrappers (allowing/denying incoming connections based on
> domain names or IP addresses) and iptables (a much more powerful but
> lower-level mechanism that lets you specify powerful rules based on
> inspecting individual packet contents). By the way, I believe the
> iptables concept (and maybe even some code) is taken straight from *BSD.
>
> But these mechanisms don't incur any overhead if you don't use them. So
> you could set up iptables to tightly control traffic to your Web server,
> but it wouldn't have any noticeable impact on SSH access, just for
> example.
>
> The point is, in Linux you don't choose between distros because one
> offers tighter security but greater network processing overhead. All
> Linux distros have similar capabilities in this regard, the tradeoff is
> controlled by you--it's just a matter of how you set things up.
>


I had a feeling you knew more than you were letting on and were leading
this somewhere
The thing with Linux distros is, basically, the same
Linux kernel, and the same GNU apps, with a distro specific
package-management system thrown in (Im generalising) and a few
eccentricities, installation management being a major.
You could say the differences are just more subtle, someone might be
interested in a Red Hat (or Fedora core) distro because it is so well
documented, or Mandrake for its windows-like simplicity, or Debian for
stability, or even Slackware for its raw flavour (had to throw that one in
being my favourite, all have trade offs, Debians stable release being
tied to older hardware, Slackwares poor upgrade/patching, etc etc. The
*BSD's have been at it slightly longer than the *nix's so that _may_
account for the differences being that much more pronounced, although the
overlap seems to be increasing, with Opens adoption of FreeBSD's ports,
and Free's adoption of Opens packet filter. Personally I feel it would be
a sad day if they all melded into a single BSD, its the differences in
focus that have made each (IMO) as great as they are in thier own respects.


> By the way, I came up with the following rhyme:
>
> There were BSD brothers three
> There was Open, Net and Free
> Open's locked down
> Net's ported around
> and Free's there to serve you and me
>
> Well, I didn't say it was _funny_ ...


heh


--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
Lawrence DOliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> In article <Xns9683E765586EDdaveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6> ,
> Dave Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence DOliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>news:ldo- http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Hey, I like both APC and PC Authority. They're part of my regular
>>> monthly reading. Much more interesting than NZ PC World.
>>>

>>Try to find a copy of Network Computing. They actually test stuff and
>>then tell you what broke and why.

>
> I don't think I've ever seen that in the shops.


It seems to be a North American Mag, but it may be in a specialty shop in
Aukland. I used to get it when I lived in Vancouver.

--
Ciao, Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
APC Mag Masterbuilder: No More OEM Pricing Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 06-17-2010 06:24 AM
[ANN] July Phoenix Ruby Users Group on Monday, July 10 James Britt Ruby 0 07-09-2006 11:27 PM
Suse 9.2 on latest APC mag bootable DVD GraB NZ Computing 7 02-21-2005 08:56 PM
Debian 3.0r2 on June APC mag DVD (7 CDs worth) GraB NZ Computing 3 06-09-2004 11:10 AM
DVD Reliability (PC MAG ARTICLE) HRosita Digital Photography 0 09-26-2003 01:48 PM



Advertisments