Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

digitalocean.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#191

Post by crest »

andrewthetechie wrote: post #127
sullrich wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also seeing really poor write speeds when comparing to my Linux droplets. 11MB/sec vs. 216MB/sec on Linux

With FreeBSD, in order to be able to have automatic backups work, we were required to disable journaling on the disk. This will cause the disk speed to be much slower than our Linux distributions. If you wish to have higher disk speeds, but not use backups, we recommend for you to remount your disk with journaling. https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/gjournal-desktop/con...

On UFS soft-updates have a lower overhead than soft-updates with metadata journaling. The downside of soft-updates without journaling is that it requires a background fsck to recover leaked space after unclean shutdowns. I prefer UFS2 SU (not SU+J) on FreeBSD for small systems, because SU+J is incompatible with UFS snapshots.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#192

Post by hhw »

elektronjunge wrote: post #53
hiphopyo wrote: post #32

Should have gone with OpenBSD instead to be honest. Half the requests on your UserVoice are for OpenBSD. All the coolest stuff in FreeBSD comes from OpenBSD. OpenBSD -- the world's simplest and most secure Unix-like OS. Creator of the world's most used SSH implementation OpenSSH, the world's most elegant firewall PF, the world's most elegant mail server OpenSMTPD, the OpenSSL rewrite LibreSSL, and the NTP rewrite Ope…

For security probably. But security isn't the only reason that I choose an OS. OpenBSD's security comes at a cost. They are usually late to the party on non-security features. Many of the security features make OpenBSD much slower. Even for security software OpenBSD isn't as big a win as the devs make it out to be. Take for instance PF, OpenBSD developers will be quick to point out that the OpenBSD version is more up…

> See OpenBSD's refusal to add a MAC framework for an example of this. Jails also don't exist for similar reasons, though they are useful for reasons other than security.

I think you've incorrectly interpreted OpenBSD's intentions. OpenBSD doesn't support a MAC framework because they believe the best approach to security is correctness, rather than trying to achieve security by adding features which results in more complexity, making it more difficult to ensure correctness. A common mistake people make is thinking that OpenBSD's primary goal is security; their primary goal is correctness. This just happens to result in better security more often than not.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#193

Post by cnst »

cnst wrote: post #94

It's kind of ironic that they list FreeBSD's excellent documentation as one of the reasons for consideration, especially considering that their own documentation is so bad! I mean, what kind of company links directly to blog entries, with incomplete and outdated information, all across their web-site? Ain't nobody got time to read the blog comments and figure out what's the current status of stuff is.

And the above post is downvoted to -2 for which precise reasons?!

Does anyone really disagree that documentation at DO is total crap?!

If it wasn't total crap, why would their employees link (on social media) to the upstream www.freebsd.org instead of any kind of FAQ on their own website? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8890383 Oh, right, because DigitalOcean's documentation (about their own features (and disabling of features from FreeBSD)) is absent and non-existent!

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#194

Post by elahd »

quicksilver03 wrote: post #166
TheDong wrote: post #139

The fact that DO had to make this announcement at all is a sign that things have gotten worse for VPSs. Before, when a company provided Xen or Kvm, you generally would get to have low-level access such as the ability to virtually connect to a serial port or vnc session of your box as it booted. You also, typically, could provide your own ISO images. Even if you couldn't provide your own iso, being able to interact wi…

This is the reason why I no longer have VPSes at DigitalOcean, sometimes I couldn't update my CentOS kernels when important updates were available because DO lagged for a few days in making them available.

Ubuntu DO instances have a modified apt sources.list file that points all apt requests to a DO-run repository. If you revert to the default repositories, you should be able to get updates as they are released.

Not sure if the same applies to CentOS.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#195

Post by ochoseis »

easytiger wrote: post #171
subliminalpanda wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to check out vultr.com. They don't directly support OpenBSD, but allow you to install an OS an a VM instance with an ISO image, either by you supplying it or they'll pull it for you through an ftp or http link. Their pricing is similar to DO. I managed to get an instance running without too much trouble. (I do not work for vultr, or affiliated in any way).

I use vultr too and find them pretty good if very slightly pricey

Is there anything like http://serverbear.com/compare/vps that lets you browse OS's offered by various providers?

Also wondering how reliable Vultr's been for you guys.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#196

Post by RaleyField »

skrebbel wrote: post #152
TheDong wrote: post #139

The fact that DO had to make this announcement at all is a sign that things have gotten worse for VPSs. Before, when a company provided Xen or Kvm, you generally would get to have low-level access such as the ability to virtually connect to a serial port or vnc session of your box as it booted. You also, typically, could provide your own ISO images. Even if you couldn't provide your own iso, being able to interact wi…

I assume you also complain about the availability of microwave meals? That'll only become a problem when you can't buy raw fruits and vegetables anymore, but I didn't see that happen. Likewise, you mention more customizable VPS options in your post. There's a market for everything. You don't understand my use case. My use case is "I want to click a button and then I want to be able to `apt-get install what-i-want` an…

> I assume you also complain about the availability of microwave meals?

DO is well know, judging by the fact that I know of it and I don't know a lot about VPS business. The fact that you and many of their customers want easy to configure VPS doesn't preclude them from offering a more configurable option for other users where you are able to install whatever kernel you want. Use more imagination and less microwaves.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#197

Post by compuguy »

TheDong wrote: post #139

The fact that DO had to make this announcement at all is a sign that things have gotten worse for VPSs. Before, when a company provided Xen or Kvm, you generally would get to have low-level access such as the ability to virtually connect to a serial port or vnc session of your box as it booted. You also, typically, could provide your own ISO images. Even if you couldn't provide your own iso, being able to interact wi…

Sounds like they aren't using kvm or xen (even though most providers do not allow for image uploading). OpenVZ is even more frustrating when your working with ipv6 (UGH!).

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#198

Post by vidarh »

blfr wrote: post #167
_xzu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a growing company want to attract as many new customers as possible? This seems to be a fast lane to default. Growing company wants as many profitable customers which can be served as possible. Or should growing companies try to offer everything for all?

Growing companies generally want to attract as many new customers as feasible because it generates buzz, and gives them a shot at becoming the go-to place for their kind of service.

Not if a large subset of those customers are not profitable, was the point.

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#199

Post by saper »

czk wrote: post #56

Just deployed a FreeBSD droplet and I'm not sure if it's just because the host network is busier than my other droplets, but I seem to be getting about half the network performance that I can in a default linux droplet. They are using Virtio, which is good since it doesn't require hardware emulation like the E1XXX devices on KVM. I should probably use a better test than cachefly but just wondering if theres any known…

> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k

16384+0 records in

16384+0 records out

1073741824 bytes transferred in 57.605991 secs (18639412 bytes/sec)

0.023u 6.128s 0:57.61 10.6% 25+172k 7+81916io 3pf+0w

> sudo mount -o nosync -u /

> mount

/dev/gpt/rootfs on / (ufs, local, soft-updates)

devfs on /dev (devfs, local, multilabel)

> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k

16384+0 records in

16384+0 records out

1073741824 bytes transferred in 5.135908 secs (209065631 bytes/sec)

0.016u 2.274s 0:05.16 44.1% 24+169k 8+8193io 0pf+0w

Re: DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD

#200

Post by [deleted] »

saper wrote: post #199
czk wrote: post #56

Just deployed a FreeBSD droplet and I'm not sure if it's just because the host network is busier than my other droplets, but I seem to be getting about half the network performance that I can in a default linux droplet. They are using Virtio, which is good since it doesn't require hardware emulation like the E1XXX devices on KVM. I should probably use a better test than cachefly but just wondering if theres any known…

> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 57.605991 secs (18639412 bytes/sec) 0.023u 6.128s 0:57.61 10.6% 25+172k 7+81916io 3pf+0w > sudo mount -o nosync -u / > mount /dev/gpt/rootfs on / (ufs, local, soft-updates) devfs on /dev (devfs, local, multilabel) > time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k 16384+0 records in 16384+0 re…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN