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

FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

wololo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#41

Post by throw0101d »

retrac wrote: post #34
adrian_b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not only the most stable, but for many applications, especially in networking, it was also the fastest single-threaded operating system, beating easily Linux and Windows XP or 2000. Unfortunately for FreeBSD, the launch of the Intel Pentium 4 with hyper-threading in 2003, then of the AMD dual-core CPUs in 2005 have made quickly FreeBSD 4 completely obsolete. The smaller FreeBSD team has required many years unt…

> required many years until achieving a decent implementation for multi-threaded CPUs and during that time they have remained long behind Linux and other operating systems Many OSes at the time had hitches with SMP. BSD was one of them. FreeBSD had SMP in 4.x but almost everything in the kernel was single-threaded and the kernel thread was a major bottleneck. FreeBSD wasn't alone in this. Linux suffered from a simila…

> This is an area where NT was much better, or VMS, or Solaris.

The SPARCcenter 2000 was able to have 20 CPUs/sockets in 1993:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun4d#SPARCcenter_2000

* https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/289692

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#43

Post by hulitu »

adrian_b wrote: post #10
tiffanyh wrote: post #2

FreeBSD 4.x was considered by many as the most stable FreeBSD ever. Mainly because there were 11 point releases of fixes and enhancements (4.11), as opposed to today where FreeBSD major version only have 3-4 point releases. https://www.freebsd.org/releases/

It was not only the most stable, but for many applications, especially in networking, it was also the fastest single-threaded operating system, beating easily Linux and Windows XP or 2000. Unfortunately for FreeBSD, the launch of the Intel Pentium 4 with hyper-threading in 2003, then of the AMD dual-core CPUs in 2005 have made quickly FreeBSD 4 completely obsolete. The smaller FreeBSD team has required many years unt…

> but for many applications, especially in networking, it was also the fastest single-threaded operating system

If it is single threaded, how does this relates to PS4 and PS5 ?

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#44

Post by hulitu »

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #12
hn8305823 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only ever lost data on Linux ext* filesystems, never on FreeBSD UFS or ZFS. 20 years ago it was unfortunately not unusual to experience the Linux "nuclear fsck" where it scrolls by so fast and for so long you know it's toast.

Hell no. I worked in an ISP in late 90s. NTFS was absolutely rock reliable, then (much worse)ext2, then (slightly worse) UFS, and then FAT.

> ISP in late 90s. NTFS was absolutely rock reliable, then

Well, i stayed away from NTFS in the Win2000 era because crashes would make your system unusable.

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#46

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

hulitu wrote: post #42

OT. Can we ban "may" and "could" from submission titles ? It will greatly increase the quality of articles on HN.

ps5 was jailbroken recently so theres some merit to this claim

wololo has been reporting in it, and mvg made a video about current state of things

https://youtu.be/5Cq3K9lBli0

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#47

Post by tiffanyh »

adrian_b wrote: post #37
mysteria wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've 100% had issues with UFS, it's a simple filesystem and subsceptible to corruption. ZFS meanwhile is a different beast altogether which is designed to ensure data integrity at all costs.

UFS without soft updates is easily susceptible to corruption. The "soft updates" option must be chosen when the disk is formatted for good reliability. As I have said, 20 years ago "soft updates" in UFS worked better than journaling in the other contemporaneous file systems. Nowadays it is likely that this is no longer true. I am still using FreeBSD in servers, but unlike 20 years ago I can afford UPSes so I no longe…

OpenBSD recently decided to turn OFF soft update, by default.

https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230706044554

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#48

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #38
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. I have many old Linux VMs too, with different degree of rot, and FreeBSD has noticeable smaller tcp connection establishment latency. Youtube opens way faster than on both older and newer linux vms.

The issue is that you're performing a test which involves a whole bunch of interconnected layers and then assigning one part of that interconnected system as where the benefits lie. Why not the TLS implementation? The video drivers and their kernel interfaces? The OS' process scheduling? A dozen other things that might be responsible for the perceived performance difference to one degree or another? It feels like gam…

You are being too pedantic. Treat what I said as anecdote.

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#49

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #36
speps wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already patched: > Early tests seem to indicate that a crash is indeed present in PS4 up to 11.00 included, and PS5 8.20 included. (Which would put the patch for this issue at firmwares PS5 8.40 and PS4 11.02)

I wonder if that's how the "hacker community" knew to look for it, doing a diff of what gets "flashed" 8.20 -> 8.40?

its because someone cashed out 50k dollars from sony for a undisclosed kex recently.

https://hackerone.com/aapo?type=user

Re: FreeBSD 4 Bug may be present in Playstation 4/5

#50

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

adrian_b wrote: post #39
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell no. I worked in an ISP in late 90s. NTFS was absolutely rock reliable, then (much worse)ext2, then (slightly worse) UFS, and then FAT.

NTFS might have been rock reliable in Windows NT and perhaps also in Windows 2000. When Windows XP has been launched, NTFS was certainly much less reliable. Even without being affected by any crashes or other anomalies, the free space on the NTFS partitions of early Windows XP computers would shrink steadily, without any apparent cause, requiring a reformatting/reinstallation after some time. Early Windows XP was ver…

I live in a developing country. We have constant power blackouts, like every day. Anything not journalling cannot survive that yteatment. Even crappiest XP was better than UFS which absolutely sucked in that respect.
Post reply on HN