OpenBSD Journal

cvs.openbsd.org needs an upgrade

Contributed by phessler on from the hardware-is-what-you-kick dept.

Marco Peereboom writes: "The cvs repository is running on its last legs and urgently needs an upgrade. The first thing that needs to be upgraded is the RAID subsystem. I am trying to raise money to purchase a high quality JBOD with U320 disks. We all know that these are not cheap at all so we'll be needing some substantial donations."

Update! (from March 15th GMT) Only $2500 still needed!

Update #2 (from March 16th GMT) The goal has been reached! Thanks to everyone for helping out and making this a successful fund raising event!

Marco continues: "I will be driving the collection and purchase of the enclosure and drives. I'll set up a web page to track the donation status. If you'd like to make an anonymous donation just let me know and I will not print your name. Queries and paypal donations should go to slash at peereboom dot us. If you can't donate using paypal contact me off list and we'll work out a different payment method. If we raise more than the required amount I'll forward that cash to Theo.

The price of a fully populated PowerVault 220S with 4 hour on-site warranty is about $12500 USD including tax and shipping. Let me kick this off by donating $250 to this cause. A person that shall not be named donated a PERC4/DC RAID controller.

If OpenBSD is important to you this is the right time to step up and donate some of that hard earned cash. The folks in Europe can really make a difference due to the current Euro exchange rate. Let me stress that the CVS machine is the single most important infrastructure device for OpenBSD. The goal is to have this enclosure in Theo's hands before the hackathon so don't wait!"


If you want to help, paypal some money to slash at peereboom dot us, or you can use the OpenBSD ordering system. Be sure to mention its for the cvs machine.

(Comments are closed)


  1. By crazythink (206.75.46.254) on

    What happens if not enough is raised? Does it get refunded? Or do we keep asking for donations until we get enough?

    1. By Marcos Latas (81.193.182.89) carvalholatas@gmail.com on

      This is fundamental. Let's concentrate on getting the money _now_, not on futurology.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on

    If OpenBSD is important to you this is the right time to step up and donate some of that hard earned cash.

    I already do this in the form of paying for every single release rather than downloading it for free. Where's that money going?

    1. By Anonymous Coward (64.235.239.2) on

      to keep making releases? from what Theo has said in the past - 3.6 sales were abysmal. OpenBSD is not flush with cash. Money on top of poor CD sales is need to keep the project going.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.143.29.120) on

        I'm sure it doesn't help that anyone can get the ISOs for free and burn their own CDs. Not just the boot images, the *FULL* ISOs... You can make your own, too. Perhaps OpenBSD needs another form of revenue. When they had some DARPA money I'm sure they were much more well to do. Of course, Theo alienated the DoD with some anti-war rhetoric. Ah well.

  3. By Syntax Error (81.204.188.152) on

    So, where to donate then...same address as the CD Sales?

    1. By Marcos Latas (81.193.182.89) carvalholatas@sapo.pt on

      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=111056575918669&w=2

  4. By Fuu (62.175.42.214) on

    Hey, OpenBSD supports software RAID, it's near as fast as hardware one, and far cheaper!

    1. By Christian Jones (66.92.35.242) chjones@aleph0.com on http://www.aleph0.com/~chjones/

      I like many things about software RAID, not the least of which is the insurance that a card won't fail, be unable to be replaced because it's no longer manufactured, and force loss of all "redundant" data. This concern is greatly alleviated by going with a proven solution from a high-end company, rather than one of the "solutions" available to most consumers at their local electronics superstores.

      And remember, as it's not included in GENERIC, OpenBSD software RAID is considered experimental. Not sure that's the attitude I want to take with what may be the most important data on the net. ;-)

      1. By mirabile (213.196.227.95) on http://mirbsd.org/

        Well, the MirOS CVS servers run on Software RAID, it's the same code
        as in OpenBSD (May 2004 at the moment) plus some fixes for "boot -a"
        and autoconfiguration/autodetection support, and they've been doing
        that for way over a year.

        And I did this both out of space constraints, cost issues (who's
        donating us? basically nobody, and others even burn t-shirts we
        donate to them) and to make sure I'm not dependent on a specific
        vendor's on-disc format.

        I've sent in a couple of EUR just now.

        1. By Samw (82.152.14.130) on

          However, OpenBSD has more than 2 or 3 developers. OpenBSD's requirements and setup requires something a little bigger than that which will suffice for one person's personal toy.

          1. By mirabile (81.169.132.156) on http://mirbsd.org/

            Sure, that's what the BSD "use the right tool for the job"
            philosophy is all about. I just stated something about the
            reliability of RAIDframe (for me).
            I've even said that it's due to space and money constraints.

            And you got something about the number of developers wrong.

  5. By Anonymous Coward (66.131.206.88) on

    Would be nice if some of the commercial Linux distro's would pitch in and help for obvious reasons...

    1. By Lincoln DeCoursey (67.51.39.173) decourl () cs sunyit edu on

      Those (obvious) reasons being OpenSSH?

      Lincoln

      >Would be nice if some of the commercial Linux distro's would pitch in and >help for obvious reasons...

  6. By ez (68.71.19.2) on

    Please justify why you need to spend $12500 on a single storage system. Why not two 14x73GB units for $9000 from eBay? Why Dell? Why U320 instead of something more cost-effective with less performance like SCSI-attached SATA? Stretch our dontations. Have you tried haggling with a Dell sales rep to lower the price? Have you talked to someone in Dell marketing about donating hardware in exchange for a "Powered by Dell" logo on the CVS web page?

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.66.29.79) on

      Why don't we buy 17 old compaq pentium 75. I mean the performance is bad but the cost is practicaly nothing!!!!

      If you pay attention to what OpenBSD does and how its made you would relize you should trust these guys to know what they are doing. If you don't use OpenBSD why are you even here??

    2. By Aasmund Midttun Godal (80.202.218.120) on

      There are uses for the solution they are asking for, I do not think that there is a significantly more cost effective solution which meets the same criteria. Important factors include:

      * Support
      * Capacity
      * Redundancy (hot-spare)
      * Manageability (hot-swap, mgmt tools etc.)
      * Performance (normal, and under load)
      * Maintenanance requirements (maybe the developers prefer developing rather than spending time making sure CVS is up).
      * Durability

      I am sure you can find solutions which offer the same capacity and performance (which would theoretically be "good enough") for around $3k, however, the other points are very difficult to achieve with a tight budget.


    3. By Anonymous Coward (68.123.254.41) on

      "Have you talked to someone in Dell marketing about donating hardware in exchange for a "Powered by Dell" logo on the CVS web page?"

      The only place you'll see Dell after a donation is on the donations page.

    4. By mirabile (81.169.132.156) on http://mirbsd.de/

      You don't buy hard discs at ebay.

  7. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

    Doesn't it seem a little odd that OpenBSD is constantly begging users for money, yet always telling users that they don't matter and that they should shutup and go away? You don't matter, but your money does. Nice attitude.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.66.29.79) on

      OpenBSD is free, and unless you are giving them money to do something. Why should they care what you think. Please just go away, you are obviously to stupid to even run OpenBSD. Please go back to windows, so that I can hack your computer.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

        They don't care what you think regardless of wether you give them money or not. Theo still thinks you are useless and don't matter. If you want to give your money to a project that says you don't matter, that's up to you. The point is, they have lost money by acting like this. They wouldn't have to beg so much if they'd stop intentionally making people not want to give them money.

    2. By Oliver (62.178.151.180) on

      Related topic, might be "insightful"
      http://www.expert-zone.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=750

      And yes, I already donated some money for the upgrade.

      1. By Nate (65.95.240.35) on

        OpenBSD has never said it was a "user-first" oriented community; this is a dictatorship. Welcome to Theocia, where those that lead make all the choices and the people can use what they are given or not for all the leaders care. If you want a specific thing in OpenBSD you hire a developer to add it, otherwise you hope that one of them wants the feature and are willing to add it themselves.

        1. By Oliver (62.178.151.180) on

          Even dictators need money :-)

          No Theo & Team: No OpenBSD, no code.
          No users: No OpenBSD, no money. Maybe a niche OS.

          Conclusion?

          1. By Anonymous Coward (69.143.29.120) on

            No money? Niche OS? Isn't that what NetBSD is?

            1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

              No, NetBSD has a company that makes money backing their development. Plus, they don't alienate their users, so they don't have to beg for money all the time, despite accomplishing more than OpenBSD.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (212.143.248.152) on

              no, netbsd is the os tedu@ steals all the code from

              1. By tedu (67.124.149.56) on

                as much as i love seeing this comment all the time, maybe somebody could fill me in on just how much code i stole from netbsd? bonus points if you can break it down into code that stolen without credit, and code that was committed with appropriate credit.

              2. By Anonymous Coward (204.209.209.129) on

                What and NetBSD is all high and mighty that they don't take any code back from OpenBSD. BullShit. Go somewhere else, I hate wasting my time on stupid people like you.

              3. By Anonymous Coward (68.149.0.169) on

                I laugh every time I see this. The BSD license grants lots of freedom. How can anyone "steal" from a BSD license, let alone "steal" code. Here's an example of infringing the BSD license, but I don't know about "stealing".

                http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html&e=747

            3. By morf (68.104.57.241) on

              netbsd must be a niche os, since their defenders find themselves trolling on undeadly.org

      2. By Aasmund Midttun Godal (80.202.218.120) on

        Interesting article. And what's more, I do believe that the OpenBSD team, including Theo, actually listen to the users. I mean support for amd64 and smp, are examples of this. This is in stark contrast to the mentally challenged people people who burp up the usual, if you want this or that, do it yourself. I am sure Theo and the rest of the crew are pretty smart people, and they do realize that without users, no money, no project. So I am pretty sure they are keen on doing things people want and need. So please, everyone who think you are "supporting" the developers by telling everyone who requests a feature, to do it themselves, go away, or hire a developer etc. you are just making people think that the OpenBSD team is a bunch self-centered ignorants, which we all can agree is not true.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

          No, AMD64 was because the devs wanted it, not the users. SMP was because NetBSD did it, so it was finally easy enough to do.

          1. By Otto Moerbeek (213.84.84.111) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net

            You are partly wrong. AMD is here because developers wanted it. It helped that AMD was nice enough to donate machines early.

            SMP is here because there was a party who wanted to have SMP, and they were able and willing to pay for development. It helped that NetBSD has SMP, so we could borrow code. It would have been silly to develop everything form scratch in this case.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (81.64.227.144) on

      Well, I'm sure they've enough money to maintain a cvs server for developpers only.
      So you're wrong: OpenBSD cares about users, and this money would profit users.

      This would not be needed if devs didn't care about granting anoncvs access to you, damn user.

      1. By henning (213.128.133.133) on

        this is about cvs.openbsd.org, which doesn't provide anoncvs. tho the mirroring hammers on its disks too.
        the replacement hardware is mostly needed due to
        1) reliability concerns
        2) performance problems
        speed is a major issue here, and please, we know what hardware we need, SATA is far far far far slower with this usage pattern.

  8. By Anonymous Coward (141.157.237.129) on

    Since OpenBSD stresses security and redundancy shouldn't the same go for the network infrastructure? Even if the second machine was a POS, atleast you would not have to have mad rush donations in order to purchase a server when the first goes down. It simply seems odd that such an organization would have only ONE CVS server if it is so critical to operations.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.66.29.79) on

      This is such a pointless message. Obviously they don't have what they need. Thats why they are fund raising for one.
      If you didn't have food in your fridge wouldn't you want to go buy food, before your belly is empty.

    2. By Otto Moerbeek (213.84.84.111) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net

      Obviously you do not have any expertise in setting up CVS, and as a consequence are talking nonsense. CVS does not allow for setting up multiple write-accesible copies of the same repository.

      Read only access is different, there are a lot of anonymous CVS mirrors already.

      The cvs.openbsd.org disk subsystem is a RAID system, but at this moment the RAID system itself is showing problems, while the load has been going up, since there are more active developers than before. The server itself does not need to be replaces, just the (very important) disk subsystem.

      But as often, some people are very eager to give advice based on false assuptions, instead of trusting us to do a good job and supporting that.

      1. By Lennart Fridén (213.64.159.220) on

        Given the money involved, you have to be prepared that people WILL ask questions no matter how worthwhile the fund raising is.

        1. By Otto Moerbeek (213.84.84.111) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net

          I don't mind people asking questions.

          But I do not like getting advice from peope that lack knowlegde (in this case about setting up a CVS repository) and just assume some facts and as a result are talking nonsense.

          Marco is an OpenBSD developer, active in SCSI driver development. His day time job involves working with disks too. I trust his judgement on what kind of disk susbystem is best for cvs.openbsd.org completely.

  9. By Has Theo endorsed this? (67.149.85.237) on

    just curious.. Has Theo endorsed this campaign to raise money? Can anyone provide me with a link? I will donate to the cause as CVS is obviously very important, but I would first like have some reassurance that the money will make it into the right hands. Thanks.

  10. By Anthony (24.61.18.73) agabriel@home.tzo.org on

    Have you thought about using SATA through an external enclosure hooked in to fiber or SCSI? You could prob get 5TB for 4 or 5K. We use them at work and hit them hard, they work well. Just an idea - but it seems more cost effective. Anthony

    1. By Anonymous Coward (80.57.212.43) on

      Since we're on the subject, what color do you want to paint the bikeshed?

      1. By Anthony (24.128.97.219) agabriel@home.tzo.org on

        I don't feel my comment warrants that response. They are looking for 12K, people including myself, see a way they can do it for significantly less. I really don't care if they use my idea or not, but I put it out there as it is viable. If they feel the need to waste money they don't have and need to ask others for, so be it. Perhaps they could still raise 12K and and give 6 or 7K back to Theo for his efforts. Needless to say they are looking for a lot of money, and I offered a solution that is significantly less with equal performance. Do with the idea as you will. By the way I choose to keep my bikes in the Attic, and not build a shed at all. Anthony

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

          No, your solution does not offer the same performance. SATA drives are faster in large, continuous transfers. SCSI drives are faster for lots of small transfers, seeking all over the place. On a very busy server, its a tremendous difference. Just because you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't mean its "the same".

          1. By Aasmund Midttun Godal (80.202.218.120) on

            If you really think performance is the reason you cannot use a cheaper solution, you should study a bit more. I mean a sata controller with a large /very large cache can easily do this.

            1. By Sean Brown (68.147.202.55) on

              Then donate a SATA controller with a very large cache and the needed drives. Until then, the project has sat down and decided on a solution that they feel is better and thats what they're going to go with. If you don't like it then don't donate.

              1. By Aasmund Midttun Godal (129.241.211.73) on

                I am not questioning the projects decision I am just saying that it's not an issue of performance, it must be other reasons, like i have stated above such as manageability, redundancy, durability, support etc.

                1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

                  And performance.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

              I didn't say it couldn't be done cheaper, I said SATA doesn't perform as well as SCSI for this sort of task. You can pretend that's not the case if you like, but it won't change the facts.

            3. By Anonymous Coward (203.10.110.133) on

              If you really think performance is the reason you cannot use a cheaper solution, you should study a bit more. I mean a sata controller with a large /very large cache can easily do this.

              Up until only recently, an IDE hard drive was only capable of servicing ONE command at any one time. While that command is being serviced, it could not even queue the next command. The IDE bus sits idle while the drive acts on the last command. The effect is a duty cycle in the drive and another seperate duty cycle on the IDE bus. While one is active, the other is idle.

              Now look at modern SCSI. A SCSI drive can queue up to 256 commands and while one is being serviced, the others can be sorted within the drive to exploit elevator sorting techniques. Drastically reducing head movement. All at the same time, SCSI can allow a drive to service a command, sort queued commands and allow commands to traverse the SCSI bus.

              A SCSI drive which is a little slower than an IDE drive on paper, can end up being MANY TIMES faster at high I/O tasks like web and database serving. And hey, CVS servers.

              Just now, some SATA drives allow up to 32 commands to be queued and I think sorted, but this requires controller or driver support.

            4. By henning (80.86.183.226) on

              If you really think performance is the reason you cannot use a cheaper solution, you should study a bit more.
              people, please. we run that machine for a while. we know where its performance bottlenecks are, and what the usage patterns are.
              I mean a sata controller with a large /very large cache can easily do this.

              this statement is incredibly wrong.

              1. By Aasmund Midttun Godal (129.241.211.73) on

                That may be true, but according to http://www.openbsd.org/anoncvs.html#MIRROR the size is about 2.2gb, this means you could fit the entire repository in cache. how could this not deliver the performance necessary?

                1. By djm@ (212.198.106.26) on

                  If cvs.openbsd.org held only a CVS repository then you might be correct, but it holds quite a bit more than that...

    2. By mirabile (81.169.132.156) on http://mirbsd.org/

      Yah, "cost effective".

      That point comes each time, because it's about
      the only thing _pro_ IDE.

      They know why they're using SCSI.

    3. By Anthony (68.145.103.21) on

      Apparently there's two of us now...

  11. By Marco Peereboom (68.82.91.100) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us

    I am a little surprised that people are wondering about the hardware selection. We need a high performance, high quality setup since this is the most important machine for OpenBSD. So SATA and low end solutions might be fine for you however this is not the case for this machine.

    I know this might sound funny to some but please just trust our judgement on hardware selection. I appreciate the suggestions but we really need higher end equipment in this case.

    EBAY is not an option because we need the warranty if something does go wrong.

    Thanks and keep those donations comming!!
    /marco

    1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) nbritton@nbritton.org on

      Just because it's "low cost" doesn't mean it's "low end". Please explain, in detail, why you need what you want, justify it.

      OpenBSD is "low cost". Is OpenBSD "low end"?

      1. By Marco Peereboom (143.166.255.18) slash@peereboom.us on www.peereboom.us

        What wasn't clear about a fully populated PowerVault 220S?

        1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

          Sorry, but I don't trust your judgement. You still haven't justified a $12k expense on this. What part of "justify" do *you* not understand? Why must it be this expensive ass piece of hardware when there are other, just a capable, and less expenive options available to you.

          I want a Porsche Carrera GT to get me about, but a Kia Rio does the same job just as well for a fraction of the cost. It may not get the oohs and ahhs but at least it gets me there, and I don't have to remortgage my house to get one.

          It comes down to this. There's what you want, then there's what you need. If the CVS server is in danger, then what you need is an economical replacement that you can get now and that works now. Try asking, someone may donate some working RAID solution to you. It may not be what you want, but it is what you need and it works.

          Now what you want is the Carrera GT of RAIDs, and well... you can want in one hand and shit in the other... which one do you think fills up faster?

          Until you give some compelling reason *why* this damned contraption is the only option availbale to you, many of us, including myself, won't give you a dime for it. Can you say "misappropriations"? Your coming across as tantrimic child who wants the Deluxe Transforming Ultra-MegaLords Action Playset (with real working lights and sound! (batteries not included)) who's having a hissy because his parent says they can't afford that right now.

          Beggars really can't be choosers. The following pages might help you understand the dilemma that many of us are facing in light of you request:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=need
          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=want

          1. By morf (68.104.57.241) on

            this presumes you, and the other assorted whiners, would ever actually donate anything. doubtful.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

              Put your money where your mouth is, might be better than that phallus you stuff it with now.

              1. By morf (68.104.57.241) on

                wow, i've been outed on the internet.

                if you don't can't/won't donate thats fine, just don't pretend you were ever going to.

          2. By henning (213.128.133.133) on

            Why must it be this expensive ass piece of hardware when there are other, just a capable, and less expenive options available to you.

            well, there are no just as capable, less expensive options available. from repeating that there were it doesn't become true.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

              Nor does reiterating that there arn't fucktard.

          3. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us

            Well *you* don't have to trust me. The good news is that many people have and we are well on our way to get what we NEED. Thanks for *your* donation.

            And thanks for your links to dictionary.com to explain need and want; they were refreshing.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

              Glad to hear that it's working out for you. I figured it would considering the wide and loyal user base of OpenBSD. But you seem to still have missed the point on the differnce bewteen needs and wants, and the friction you will encounter when you ask people to donate to what many consider exorbitantly priced hardware. Not all of the OpenBSD user base is unquestioning, and your snide demeanor in responding as to why only makes you look like a dick. It's not good to be condescending when you have your palm stuck out.

              Maybe your proximity to the project makes you think you know it all, but I delude myself into thinking that the OpenBSD camp is a bit more knowledgeable and resourceful than most other netizens out there. The collective of the user base has proposed lots of lower cost alternatives on this very site and you have arrogantly ignored them, intent to spend come hell or highwater. Many of these people work in IT and have to make thier systems work with the same level of demand but on a shoestring budget. If you want to continue to act like a know-it-all in the face of these individuals, then don't expect much sympathy when people don't contribute beyond the semiannual CD sales. (Yes, I know CD sales are ailing).

              I am proud to have stood up and have asked why, for suggesting that you look into more economical alternatives instead of just whipping out my checkbook right away. I am ashamed that you saw such a simple question as beneath you to answer and choose to respond to it with venom.

              It would be sad to think that OpenBSD's needs might suffer because of your arrogance.

              1. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/pv220s_quote.pdf

                Since you are out to make me look like an ass I'll disregard your insulting comments and be the nice guy by showing you how I came up with the magical $12500.

                See the quote at: http://www.peereboom.us/pv220s_quote.pdf Note at the bottom the $11774.49 grand total. Whenever such a unit is purchased it is good practice to also purchase an additional drive as a spare. At $549 a pop we are now at 12323.49. Also note the no shipping costs and let me tell you how it works for a box that weighs over 60lbs. It'll be easily $200. So the total of having the box in my hands is already $12500+ and then it needs to make it to Theo's, not to mention money transfer fees and other assorted fees that'll magically pop up when dealing with such an effort.

                Oh and you too can get a quote like that by surfing to: http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/storage_store?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
                and clicking some buttons. Now that you know how I came up with the magical number it is ok for you to disagree with our selection of hardware. You are however unaware of the IO load on the box and you project your view of reality upon the decision that was made by some pretty smart engineers who do this for a living. You might find this funny, I find this infantile, disrespectful and insulting. Like most OpenBSD developers I have a real job with real demands. I give you my time and expertise for free and you thank me with insults. Trust me, I can do without.

                I donated $250 and I’ll end up with most of the fees. What have you done besides insulting OpenBSD?

                1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

                  "Since you are out to make me look like an ass I'll disregard your insulting comments ..."

                  You did that for yourself. I just pointed it out to you. Don't shoot the messenger. If I really wanted to have at you, I wouldn't have bothered being so long winded. The actual request was really quit simple and did not merit confrontation.

                  "... and be the nice guy by showing you how I came up with the magical $12500."

                  Isn't that all that was really asked for? What exactly are the contributors really getting OpenBSD for thier money? You might want to link all of this to the main page so anyone else who has questions can see where thier money is going.

                  "You might find this funny, I find this infantile, disrespectful and insulting. Like most OpenBSD developers I have a real job with real demands. I give you my time and expertise for free and you thank me with insults. Trust me, I can do without."

                  There is an old saying: "Never trust a programmer with a screwdriver." Just because I trust the coding of the OpenBSD core team doesn't mean I trust their other descisions. Your descions are not infallible. And I don't find it funny at all. I find it sad that as a representative of OpenBSD you decided to be ornery with this disclosure. Though showing us how you arrived at these numbers is a huge step, the core question is what does this solution bring to the table that cheaper SATA RAID solutions do not. Many have lampooned the SATA idea, noone has actually botherd explaining why it is insufficent here (that I have seen). Not being a RAID guru, a quick google shows me numbers that reflect SATA RAID performance in a better light, and equivilent redundancy. There are many opinions on the matter, I want the facts.

                  "What have you done besides insulting OpenBSD?"

                  I recall saying nothing derogatory about OpenBSD. Please don't project unimplied emphasis upon my words. My dissatisfaction is with your lack forthcoming as to why a more cost effective solution was not viable. No more, no less. "Trust me" is never a sufficent response.

                  1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                    There is an old saying: "Never trust a programmer with a screwdriver."

                    Unfortunately, computer science being industrialized, has caused the move away from "computer scientists" and moved towards a split between programmers and computer engineers.

                    People who design Operating Systems, I would like to think know intimately about hardware, software and their efficient interaction.

                    Worse still, on an unrelated note, API's are removing the programming from programmers and bringing non-programmers to programming.

                  2. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

                    Seriously, if you can't look up the seek times of SATA and SCSI drives for yourself, then you shouldn't be talking.

                    1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                      Let's give him a hand...

                      Seagate SCSI and SATA 3.5mS versus 8mS.

                      Notice all the SATA drives falling under the "Desktop" category?

                      Western Digital SATA 4.5mS. Fast, but also expensive and shown to not match the high end SCSI drives at high I/O, even with TCQ enabled. I would like these in my desktops, but then, I'd like the Maxtor SCSI 320's in my desktops more. ; )

                      Fujitsu SCSI 3.3mS.

                      Maxtor SCSI 3mS.

                      Maxtor SATA 9mS.

                      I made a slight mistake before linking to a storagereview page. The one with all the SCSI 320 drives and the Raptor SATA coming last. I accidentally clicked on the 'Server - Capacity' criteria, instead of the 'Server - Performance' criteria. Funny though, the SCSI 320 drives meant for 'capacity', actually outperform the SATA drive meant for 'performance'. Take a look at these, side-by-side, to rub a little salt into your ego. 5.5mS versus 8.1mS and 97-74Mb/S versus 72-54Mb/S transfer rates.

                      Hell the SCSI drives transfer rate at it's slowest, is faster than the SATA drive at it's fastest.

                      I love OpenBSD. I would love to see a core development server for this fine OS with nothing but the best components for the job. The developers have to use it and I am fine with their decision to go with high end performance and safety. Why do you care so much? Are you really caught between wanting to donate and being dead set against the spec? Are you just trolling?

                      PS, do you really believe MTBF and MTTF figures quoted by companies that are trying to sell you something? One of the few specifications that we can't really accurately test? 1.5M hours MTBF is 171 years. Do you really believe that crap?

                      1. By Anonymous Coward (195.85.225.142) on

                        What is the system used now ?

          4. By Chris (24.76.170.207) on

            Sorry, but I don't trust your judgement.

            And that says it all right there. You don't trust their judement to have thought out, and have a good idea of, what they need for a CVS server, but you trust their judgment to provide you with an OS that (I assume) is critical to something you do on a network somewhere? Maybe you can provide me with a dictionary.com link for cognitive dissonance :)

            It seems like all the SATA suggestions mostly look at cost and disk space alone. Neither of those seem like the primary concern for the CVS server that makes OpenBSD happen. This isn't a big fileshare or music server handing out relatively large files to the Internet.

            I'm glad you're proud of having "stood up and questioned" people on the Internet... very brave.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

              "I'm glad you're proud of having "stood up and questioned" people on the Internet... very brave." You would rather I kiss ass and fill my pages with hollow accolades? No thanks. Working with friends of mine, even though they do some great work, when it comes to meeting our business needs on a budget, I don't trust them at all. Even myself. Openly questioning the rhyme and reason for certain descisions is a good thing. OpenBSD is a manifestation of that ideaology. Source code audits are a questioning the original programmers ideaology just as much as they are a search for simpler mistakes. Did the programmer sacrafice security for speed knowing the potential ramifications? The question here is what of the CVS server is so demanding that such a large expense is justifed, and other options become disqualified. It's a rational line of questioning anyone would (or should) ask when someone asks for money.

              1. By tedu (67.124.149.56) on

                "The question here is what of the CVS server is so demanding that such a large expense is justifed,"

                seek time (among a few other things)

                1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

                  tedu, I must thank you for being one of the few to show anything of contribution here and not trying to shoot me down in flames for asking. I can see how the differnce in seek time would be a major boon to a CVS server. Details like that were all that were ever asked. It's too bad that others here think themselves above answering such questions. You have shown more respect for OpenBSD then any of them have.

                  1. By Bruce (24.85.90.11) on

                    Assuming you are the same Anonymous Coward at IP 71.0.126.14 as the one who, for example, posted dictionary.com links to the words 'need' and 'want', I don't think you can honestly claim people are, "trying to shoot me down in flames for asking." Instead, maybe you should look up 'trolling'. Of course, many people in this discussion could use a bit of relaxation time.

              2. By CyBoon (165.21.154.116) on

                Actually I'd would rather you keep your mouth shut.

                Because your questions are about nothing and achieve nothing except to
                make you feel good about yourself. At the end of the day, these folks
                will use what they ask for. They will take responsibility, as they have
                always done, all these years. Are you prepared to do the same? To make
                the same effort and sacrifices?

                I am amazed at how nicely marco has treated you. Despite your vulgar
                and uncivilised behaviour. I stare in amazement at your questions,
                this one in particular:

                "What exactly are the contributors really getting OpenBSD
                for thier money?"

                Isn't it obvious? No? Every second an OpenBSD machine stays up,
                every attack they weather, every hour saved in deployment, every
                tiny detail taken care of is worth every cent I contribute.

                Please don't 'stand out and ask questions' on my behalf. I am
                an OpenBSD user and I have much higher standards than you ever
                will. I have asked hard questions from my OpenBSD systems every
                day for the past 6 years, as many other OpenBSD users have.
                Many of us users are serious folk with hard problems to solve.
                Your 'problems' with OpenBSD mean very little to us. At the end
                of the day, they deliver. That's all.

                The OpenBSD folks have been doing good work for a long time.
                It is clear from their track record (code and operations)
                that they know what they are doing. Did you give them $12K?
                Did you volunteer to help out? Do you even have the skills
                to do so?

                There are people who get things done and then there are the
                folks who are 'concerned' about this and that. Who 'stand up
                and ask questions'. Who will ask questions for the sake of
                hearing their own voice and 'participating'. You are clearly
                in the latter group.

                Unlike you, I have a lot of respect and trust in the OpenBSD
                folks. I greatly appreciate all the hard work they've put in
                all these years and big-talking posers like you who think
                they're good enough to talk like that the the OpenBSD crew
                simply makes me furious.


                1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

                  This may come as some surprise to you, Sunshine, but I didn't ask you and could give a flying fuck less what you think of me. If marco had been forthright in answering the qustion to begin with instead of condescending to original individual who asked, none of this would be here.

                  So far this dialog has only made me think less of certain members of the OpenBSD community because of the arrogance and self-importance placed on display over such a trivial query. What you, I, or anyone else thinks of themsleves, thier contributions, or OpenBSD in general, has nothing to do with the capabilities of the hardware in question versus the more economical proposed solutions. Instead of answering the question, many of you have chosen to hold an inquistion. Remind me again, is this an OpenBSD website or a papal rally? And before you point that finger asking what have I done, what have you done?

                  So far only two people have actually posted legitimate answers, and neither of them were Marco. And for all your pompusness just now, it sure as hell wasn't you either. You just jumped on the bandwagon of people making excuses why for the question shouldn't be answered, and how your trust should be sufficient to merit my donation.

                  I asked nothing on your behalf. You are not the skeptic, you are just a sheep willing to go along with whatever is asked of you. You were free to continue grazig in your pasture, but instead decided to speak out here. You are obviously willing to pay top dollar for eveything you buy when the brochure says top-of-the-line, regadless of whether or not more cost effective and capable solutions are open to you. C'est la vie. But don't expect everyone to be just like you.

                  Also, you, like so many other of the less astute posters here (not all the posters, just the elite few), have chosen to put words into my mouth about OpenBSD. Nothing I have ever said had anything to do with the quality or capabilities of OpenBSD. In fact, I have said the opposite. But that soapbox you are standing on seems to have put your head that much farther up your ass and rendered you incapable of seeing that.

                  Concern for how OpenBSD makes use of the funds it is asking for can mean the differnce between paying Dell a thief's ransom for superflous crap or supporting the next piece of non-donated hardware. If that's not a concern of yours, then that would be your shortcoming. Don't play holier-than-thou to those who do.

                  Everyone here wants what is best for OpenBSD, and that includes getting the best bang for the buck. I proposed no reason for or against the SATA RAID, I only asked why this was not an option here as it appears quite capable and much less expensive. You are the ones who decided that is was blasphemy and that you are somehow better than I because of it. This speaks more of you than any slur I could ever cast your direction.

                  And despite what any of you think about respect and trust, I can disagree with a person's decisions or attitude without loosing faith in that individuals capabilities, or respect for everything they have done before and after. I respect everything Marco Peereboom, and every other contributor has done for OpenBSD. But that's a far different cry from the absolute faith many of you sychophants have put into them and on display here in the past few days. As lemmings go, you really have nothing to be proud of.

                  1. By CyBoon (165.21.154.108) on

                    Lovely. Can we have more milk and less moo from your replies? And can you please answer my questions? :-)

  12. By bsdguy (69.45.74.35) on

    Somebody should set a webpage to show the status of money collected (Like for the G5 collection). It was useful to know how close OpenBSD team is in getting the goodies. Thanks for making OpenBSD and supporting OpenBSD everybody!

    1. By Nate (65.95.243.105) on

      Y'know, this is more of a Slashdot kind of thing to say than something that should pop up on Undeadly: RTFA. "I'll set up a web page to track the donation status."

      It's right there man.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (68.149.0.169) on

        He's basically saying he doesn't trust OpenBSD, which I have to wonder why he wants to donate in the first place.

        Come on, this is OpenBSD, and we've seen great progress from them. This isn't one of those "goodwill" Tsunami donation drives that does basically nothing for the people, except to garner more publicity for donations.

  13. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

    WTF! are you on crack!, maybe I read it wrong or the fact that I didn't read pass the first line but, "JBOD with U320 SCSI", First of all JBOD is NOT Raid! and in no way do you need U320 SCSI because your bottleneck is your connection to the net and to a lesser extent your system. maybe if you had a 10Gbit (1.3GB/s) link but I doubt you even have a 1Gbit link (130MB/s, PCI is 32-bit/33Mhz = 130MB/s, PCI-X 64-bit/66Mhz = 530MB/s, and PCI-X 64-bit/133Mhz = 1GB/s) to the net. I don't see how you can justify $12,500 for a JBOD U320 array when I (and you) can build a 4TB SATA hardware based hotswap (trays, racks, chassis, everything!) RAID 5 system or even a hybrid SCSI/(S)ATA for 1/4 - 1/3 the cost and and then still have a shitload of money after you buy that near-line remote (wifi etc. in another building) JBOD 4TB ATA system to backup the 4TB raid array. I've spent the better part of a year researching and prototyping (on paper) low cost large raid systems and id be happy to share it with you.

    1. By Tobias Weingartner (68.148.1.194) weingart@tepid.org on

      > WTF! are you on crack!, maybe I read it wrong or the fact that I didn't
      > read pass the first line but, "JBOD with U320 SCSI", First of all JBOD is
      > NOT Raid!

      Well, that depends entirely on where your RAID functionality is located.
      If the RAID card happens to be in/on the motherboard, a JBOD enclosure
      will be exactly what is needed. No?

      > and in no way do you need U320 SCSI because your bottleneck is your
      > connection to the net and to a lesser extent your system.

      Really? What does the CVS server do when you do a large checkout/update? If you research this particular issue, you
      will find that the issue is not necessarily network throughput,
      and having your disk subsystem keep up with network, but it is
      quite simply disk I/O.


      > maybe if you
      > had a 10Gbit (1.3GB/s) link but I doubt you even have a 1Gbit link
      > (130MB/s, PCI is 32-bit/33Mhz = 130MB/s, PCI-X 64-bit/66Mhz = 530MB/s,
      > and PCI-X 64-bit/133Mhz = 1GB/s) to the net.

      What makes you think that the local network the main cvs server is on
      does not have at least Gb networking connectivity?


      > I don't see how you can
      > justify $12,500 for a JBOD U320 array when I (and you) can build a 4TB
      > SATA hardware based hotswap (trays, racks, chassis, everything!) RAID5
      > system or even a hybrid SCSI/(S)ATA for 1/4 - 1/3 the cost and and then
      > still have a shitload of money after you buy that near-line remote (wifi
      > etc. in another building) JBOD 4TB ATA system to backup the 4TB raid
      > array. I've spent the better part of a year researching and prototyping
      > (on paper) low cost large raid systems and id be happy to share it with
      > you.

      Yes, I'm sure you did, for your needs. Personally, I doubt that cvs
      needs terrabytes and terrabytes of storrage. It is about I/O throuput
      and a particular type of disk access pattern. However, I was not part
      of the group that put together this particular spec. If I was so
      inclined to waste those people's time to find out the what, why, and
      how they came to the conclusion they did, chances are pretty good that
      I would come to a very similar solution.

      When it comes all down to it, you're talking to people that have been
      doing this professionally for a *LONG* time. We, if anyone, know what
      our resources and limits on those resources are. We are the ones that
      are the developers of this system. If you trust us to keep your data
      safe, to keep security in our minds always. Why would you not trust
      us when we say that we need this? Because we want to "play" with a
      U320 scsi system? Trust me, many of us have worked with many such
      systems in our work, or past lives. Asking for money, to get such a
      toy to play with, would be the last thing on *MY* mind. For $12'500
      I could pay some of my bills, go on that honeymoon in style, and in a
      timeframe that would be more fitting than "sometime when we have money".


      --Toby.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (203.10.110.131) on

      in no way do you need U320 SCSI because your bottleneck is your connection to the net and to a lesser extent your system

      You think that the only conections this machine will be making, will be from the net?

      I am not even an OpenBSD developer, but I realise that this server probably has builds for multiple architectures happening very often from machines that are connected within the same LAN as it (snapshots? An integral part of QA), as well as people from the net updating their own trees. I would imagine that it would be busy with loads of high I/O requests.

      Do you want SATA for high I/O? Or would you prefer the disk subsystem which has been specifically designed with high I/O in mind, SCSI?

      Please share your past years, on-paper experience with these people which understand these systems at very low levels, write drivers and deploy in the real-World.

      PS, I don't have a credit card, what is the best way for me to donate? Can I direct debit?

      1. By Marco Peereboom (143.166.226.19) slash@peereboom.us on www.peereboom.us

        Just visit www.paypal.com. They offer many ways of sending money. Many people have so don't be shy :-)

        1. By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.44) on

          The problem with paypal is that in my particular country (Belgium) you need a credit card to add funds to the damned thing. IMO, moneybookers(.com) is a much better alternative. It's slightly less American friendly, but it's very Euro-friendly, and you don't have to mess about with credit cards and other such vile trickery. Perhaps you could set up a moneybookers account? It requires mimimum effort.

          1. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/

            Can you make your donation on the European site? It's at https://https.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/order.eu

            Thanks!! /marco

            1. By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.44) on

              I knew I was overlooking something :o).

    3. By Anonymous Coward (203.10.110.131) on

      I've spent the better part of a year researching and prototyping (on paper) low cost large raid systems and id be happy to share it with you.

      On second thought, after looking at your web page, complete with your favourite colours and very wrong in places "DOS to UNIX" reference, I think the devs can do without hearing about your storage "research".

      label = disklabel?

      1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

        "and very wrong in places "DOS to UNIX" reference"

        That DOS to Unix reference (and most of the FreeBSD page) was from when I was first starting out with FreeBSD and the UNIX command line, it's not even complete. The thing you have to remember is that my site is mainly for me to write my scribbles and notes down.

        My history is with DOS, Novell, Windows and a little bit of OS/2 not with UNIX. I am not a developer and have never said I was one, but I'm learning. My expertise is in hardware, systems, and network administration / integration / engineering or whatever you want to call it and I do clam to know a thing or two about hardware because it's what I do for a living, and I love doing it.

        "label = disklabel?"

        you are %100 right, but at the time I did not know that.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

          My expertise is in hardware, systems, and network administration / integration / engineering or whatever you want to call it and I do clam to know a thing or two about hardware because it's what I do for a living, and I love doing it.

          I've been in electronics and computing since 1989 but I am just a humble long-time OpenBSD user. But I realise that hardware goes hand-in-hand with software.

          You cannot fully understand the best hardware fit for an overall system, without knowing the loads placed on that hardware by the software. It is the software choice afterall, which determines the hardware needs.

          If you are choosing software based on the hardware you have, you have put the cart before the horse. I don't go out and randomly buy the fastest hardware, only to later find that I will be limited to Microsoft Windows products. I choose my software (OpenBSD, Mac OSX, db, www, smtp, nntp, pf) and then spec the hardware accordingly.

          I believe that SCSI is by far the right decision for a busy cvs server (or most any other server for that matter). However, if the devs chose otherwise, I would realise that I am busy with my work and have not put the time into considering what has been on the plate before them.

          I might ask why they decided to go with their decision, out of curiosity to learn, but certainly not bark at them about how wrong they are after I've thought about it for a few minutes. Yes, I'm aware you've spent the better half of the last year spec'ing out storage for the need before you, but you do not have all the criteria that these OpenBSD devs do before them.

          1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

            See my other post, it adresses most of what you asked/said: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20050311204840&pid=125

  14. By Matt Healey (203.31.101.76) on

    What the HELL?

    It sounds to me more like you want U320 to play with it. Not because you need it. Even a quick glance around shows up better, cheaper options.

    What about an XServe RAID?

    The mid priced unit gives you 2.8TB across 7x 400GB disks, Dual RAID controllers with 512MB's of cache each, dual power supplies and 3 year, 4 hour on-site replacement all for $9,500. That still leaves you 7 drive bays free for further expansion.

    If something like that is good enough for Cisco and Oracle, and also good enough for Apple to run the iTunes Music Store, I fail to see why it would not be good enough to run the Open* CVS site.

    1. By Nate (65.95.243.105) on

      You will never see Theo support the idea of buying anything from Apple is why there is no Xserve solution involved.

      1. By Matt Healey (203.31.101.84) on

        I am guessing Theo has some personal problem with Apple?

        1. By Nate (65.95.243.105) on

          You'll need to read through misc searching for anything referring to Apple for the details, but the short version is that Apple is the anti-Open.

          1. By Duffman (82.122.166.110) on

            Because you think that DELL loves Open-Source ? Mwahahahahaha!

            1. By Anonymous Coward (213.84.127.221) on

              Dell doesn't care. You want to buy iron and they are allowed to sell it to you: you've got a deal.

              1. By Duffman (82.226.59.105) on

                And so what ? Apple doesn't care. You want to buy iron and they are allowed to sell it to you: you've got a deal.

    2. By Marco Peereboom (143.166.255.18) slash@peereboom.us on www.peereboom.us

      400GB SATA? ouch! those things are awful quality. Appreciate the thought but we need better uptime than that.

  15. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

    New Raid Array: $4740
    LSI Logic MegaRAID 320-2 (PERC4/DC): $Free
    15 ACARD ARS-2100Q Ultra160 to IDE Bridge Adapters: $1335, mars-tech.com
    15 250GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drives: $2,000
    SCSI Cables and Connectors: $300
    4U 9-bay Rackmount Storage Chassis: $500
    3 Chenbro 5.25" 3-bay to 5 3.5"-bay Hotswap IDE backplanes/cages: $600
    -----------------------------
    Raid Array Specs:
    15 250GB IDE Drives.
    Raid 5 Capacity, minus one hotspare and parity drive: 3.2TB.
    Max Throughput: 320MB/s (two Ultra160 channels).

    New CVS Server: $1430
    Intel E7210 Server Motherboard "SE7210TP1-E", Boxed: $210
    Intel P4 3.0E GHz 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache, HTT, Boxed: $180
    Kingston Dual Channel Kit 184-Pin 1GB(512MBx2) ECC Registered DDR400: $350
    Keyboard, Mouse, Monitor, floppy: $170
    2U Enermax rackmount case: $230
    LG 52X32X52 CD-RW Drive, Model GCE-8526BB: $24
    2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000RPM SATA Hard Drives $260

    Recreate Old CVS Server into new "Near-Line" (Mirror of Raid 5 Array) Backup Server: $2260
    2 HighPoint RocketRAID 1640's SATA Controllers: $180
    10 300GB SATA Hard Drives: $1900
    13-bay ATX server case: $140
    802.11b/g PCI (Atheros chipset) Adaptor: $40

    Misc: $2600
    Tripp-Lite Rackmount LCR2400 AC Line Conditioner: $360
    Tripp Lite Smartpro 5000 UPS 5000VA, 4000 Watts, 3U Rackmount: $2,240

    Grand Total: $11,030 and I wasn't even trying to cut costs down (just ballparked everything), lot more bang for your buck!!!

    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.114.59.123) on

      Before all you guys complain take a look at the MTBF and rated power cycles of SATA drives and then of U320 drives...U320 drives are much heavier duty.

      1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) nbritton@nbritton.org on

        "Before all you guys complain take a look at the MTBF and rated power cycles of SATA drives and then of U320 drives...U320 drives are much heavier duty."

        Thats the whole point of a RAID. when you have hotspares, hotswapping and don't deliberately run the RAID in degraded mode then the MTBF for hard drive failure is null. The only thing that will stop you is an "act of god", a failure in other parts of the system, or a power failure and to counteract those you can buy 2 SATA servers (mirroring them, RAIP) a UPS and a generator for the price of an equivalent SCSI server. Now the only thing that will stop you is an "act of god". to counteract "acts of god" you can buy a l-cheap-o PC and mirror the array from anywhere in the world. now the only thing that can stop you is the apocalypse. but by then it doesn't matter :-).

    2. By henning (80.86.183.226) on

      well, nikolas, if in your little world a disk subsystem is entirely described by bandwidth and size, fine, go for your sata thingies, but stop trolling here.

  16. By Anonymous Coward (144.136.95.144) on

    I noticed on slashdot, there's a few folks that indicate Dell's service support being mention is a bit of a joke. First one... "Wow I need to frame that quote some where Dell's support is TERRIBLE. Bottom line here is the scoop. If you want to buy servers on the cheap buy EXTRA ones. the 4 hour support thing is a sham. Every time Ive had to call them on it, they have had to fly people & equipment, or just make up the damedest lies on why they cannot deliver equipment in 48 hours (on the 4 hour support contract none the less). The last time they got me (6 days ago) we lost 1 terrabyte of their 'nas' storage... The joke was the 1st 24 hour delay on the 4 hour response was the lack of 250Gig IDE DISKS..... Then they send out the Unisys guy to get the box to boot, because it just crashes, and lo-and behold, he cant get it to work either. Now its going to be 12 DAYS to fix the box, and they have no spares. Nice 4 hour response guys! After 48 hours of this outage I managed to beat them into shipping a 6600 with 1.2Tb of space so I can restore peoples home directories & profiles so they can login again.. wow thanks. Bottom line is that they suck, and you get what you pay for. Its probably better to buy Compaq/HP on ebay & re-warentee it." Second one... "I agree. At one point Dell sold the company I work for some servers that would be clustered and hooked up to SAN's the world over. They sold us "gold" maintenance, knowing fine well where each and every cluster would be located, because we told them, and they even factored that in to the overall quote. This isn't some little deal for a couple of tens of thousands of dollars, this is a 80,000+ users worldwide, who would all be moving from HP desktops and servers to Dell, for the Wintel stuff. Now guess what nearly blew the deal? One of the locations that was destined to receive a Dell cluster was not supported for 2-3 days a week because their support engineer organised deep-dea fishing trips!!! He was the Dell engineer, and they came within a hair's breadth of blowing this as they furiously scrambled for engineer cover in $LOCATION. I wouldn't give Dell ANY money for service over their default baseline, as they may know how to ship boxes, they don't know jack shit about service."

    1. By Marco Peereboom (143.166.255.18) slash@peereboom.us on www.peereboom.us

      Oh slashdot, now there is a reliable bunch. For the record; I'll be more than happy to buy IBM, SUN, EMC or HP which do have superior service if you send an additional few thousand dollars to pay for that. A SAN would be nice too but we don't expect $80k in donations.

  17. By zyphr (83.68.2.195) on

    Why not email vendors like cisco, nCipher etc that use openbsd and ask them to donate as well ?

  18. By Anonymous Coward (164.86.99.3) on

    okay.. I know some raid arrays are pricy.. but can one of the sata advocates find me a 15K RPM sata drive? what about seek time? my guess is that heavily concurrent cvs sessions causes the kind of bursty, random disk access that can a) fry a shoddy disk b) be really demanding in terms of performance c) cause deep filesystem corruption in the event of failure (compared to a more sequential pattern) as for caching: this is the -central- server for crying out loud.. you want as much committed, -on the disk platters- as possible.. having it floating around in some ram cache on another box is not really an option in my humble, no-commit-bit-having-end-user opinion... yes, raid offloads some of that performance / reliability to the controller & redundancy through disk multiplexing, but it's only as good as the underlying disks.. you dont want your reliability concerns serving only to offset the poor reliability of your crappy disks.. you want to -increase- reliability of your -very good- disks.. I know sata is cheaper & better for some cases.. but perhaps there -is- a reason that scsi drives are being manufactured? I wonder how many 'build it yourself' sata proponents in these forums are whining about privlege seperated daemons in their openbsd boxes & saying 'yeah, but what do you really need that for, it takes forever to fork a new process, and those process table entries are expensive in terms of memory'.. or have had to spend 2 days debugging their build-it-themself box and waiting weeks on hardware to test the theory that the power supply might be bad.. or was it that the bios can't handle that blend of hardware components.. or is it a kernel bug.. I've never used this kind of drive before, etc.. I'd wager -none- .. but it's the same thing: cost vs reliability and quality .. that being said, it's good to have some alternate community input to the purchase decision - maybe there is something better out there - .. but I'd say in general: 'more money for the project, the better..' it's not like openbsd == chase manhattan bank or anything for chrissakes help them out anyway .. they do good stuff and get barely any of the linux hype about 'The Growing Enterprise OpenSource Market Space (TM)'

    1. By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on

      Heavily concurrent CVS sessions? You clearly haven't looked at the CVS log recently.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (199.67.140.77) on

        Not all CVS activity consists of commits.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (24.12.6.251) on

      I'm sick of all of you SCSI snobs talking crap about SATA drives. The use of SATA drives is a valid idea, but all you guys can say is "MTBf, Seek Time, and Command Queuing." I'm a Storage Architect and I've been doing this for a long time. Yes, SCSI drives are better than SATA drives. SCSI drives are also about 3x as expensive, but they are certainly not 3x as fast. If you spent $10,000 on a SCSI array, I guarantee you I could spend $6,000 on a SATA array and get as good or better performance. How? Easy - I can afford alot more spindles than you. I can do RAID 1+0 where you'll have to do RAID 5, and I'll probably STILL have more capacity than you. Not to mention that my array (even with worse MTBF ratings) will be more highly available than yours.

      There is a reason that HDS and EMC are offering SATA drives in their enterprise products. Those guys don't mess around - their reputation is on the line. If SATA sucked so bad, they wouldn't be doing it. (And, yes, I know their controllers do some extra things for the SATA drives, etc... but it's irrelevant here.)

      These guys offered valid points and got bashed. It's easy to see why the OpenBSD crowd has a reputation for thinking their shit don't stink.

  19. By Anonymous Coward (67.102.173.11) on

    Just use bittorrent to provide the source, netbsd does it, works fine.

    1. By SH (82.182.103.172) on

      Just use bittorrent to provide the source, netbsd does it, works fine.

      One may enjoy a well written troll post (very scarce, I'm afraid), but this is pathetic.

    2. By morf (68.104.57.241) on

      "Another reason why openbsd sucks." if you think openbsd sucks, then i have to ask, why are you here? your contributions have amounted to trolling, stupid ideas and "netbsd does it better"

      1. By morf (68.104.57.241) on

        wrong thread, wrong article. bah!

  20. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us

    From: slash@peereboom.us
    Subject: cvs.openbsd.org needs an upgrade, a few days later
    Date: March 14, 2005 5:50:47 PM CST
    To: misc@openbsd.org

    First off I want to thank all people that donated money. Many people sent small and big donations and we are about $2500 away from the requested amount. So please keep those donations coming!! Your donations will have a direct impact on the continuity of the project.

    The surprising thing in this whole experience is the lack of donations from companies. By far most donations came from individuals who care for the project. If you work for a company that uses OpenBSD code please urge them to make a donation so that we can continue to deliver quality software for free.

    I challenge the community to step up and get the last few bucks in so that we can order the equipment before the end of the week!

    To all who already donated thanks again :-)

    /marco

  21. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

    2x Supermicro SC743T-R760 4U Rackmount Chassis: $780 ($1,560)
      Triple Redundanty 760W Power Supply
      8 Hot-swappable Drive Bays
      6 80mm 5000RPM fans

    13x 74GB Western Digital Enterprise SATA Drive: $180 ($2,340)
      (8 for Raid Array, 2 for RAID1 System Drive and 3 Spares)
      5-year warranty and 1.2 million hours MTBF
      Optimized for Server Access Patterns.
      Average Read Seek Time 4.5ms
      Average Write Seek Time 5.9ms
      Command Queuing
      10,000 RPM

    2x Intel Boxed P4 Server Platform: $1,140 ($2,280)
      Intel Boxed E7210 Chipset Server Board "SE7210TP1-E": $210
        3 64-bit/66MHz PCI-X Slots
      Intel Boxed Pentium 4 3GHz Processor: $180
        800MHz FSB
        1MB L2 Cache
      Kingston ECC DDR400 1GB(512MBx2) RAM Kit: $350
      Misc. Server Parts: $400

    2x Your Choice of SATA RAID Card: $1,000 ($2,000)
    1x TrippLite Fault Tolerant Bypass 3000VA Online UPS $1,100

    Grand Total: $9,280 ($6,360 for 1)
    $3,220 Dollars Cheaper and Your Buying an Extra Server, RAID Card, and Chassis for "On-Site" Replacement Parts Plus a UPS System... Oh yea, I forgot to add in the cost of a 3000 Watt Generator, Tack $700 onto the price and an Online JBOD Mirror of the RAID Array, Tack on Another $700. I can't see how you can find fault in this system because everything is fault tolerant because your buying two systems, one for cannibalizing when you have failures on the main rig. And the Hard Drives are Ultra160 SCSI Drives with SATA Controllers. The SATA spec supports roughly everything the SCSI spec does, notably Command Queuing and Hot-Swap. And your getting 2.2 times the size of your current array.

    Umm, There It Is, Good Day.

    1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

      Also when SATA-II (300MB/s) and SATA-III (600MB/s) are released and readily available you will have a clear upgrade path and it will be much cheaper then SCSI because like SCSI the SATA spec is also backwards compatible (and forewords compatible). you can run SATA-I drives on a SATA-II controller, doing this will improve host to controller I/O throughput, and you can replace the drives one by one or all at once, because a SATA-II Drive will talk to a SATA-II controller at 300MB/s and the other older SATA-I drives will run at 150MB/s and not downgrade the SATA-II drive to 150MB/s. $1,000 to upgrade only the controller and $180 to upgrade each of the drives so your looking at $2,500 to completely upgrade the RAID array to SATA-II instead of the $12,500 you need now to upgrade the RAID. Plus you will have that extra server that is for spare parts to seamlessly upgrade the RAID with little to no downtime.

      1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

        where are the 15k sata disks?
        where are the 15k sata disks?
        where are the 15k sata disks?

        1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

          They should be in the market by next year. unless someone else knowns something that I don't? So if you get this now and wait for the next upgrade cycle (SATA-II, 15K Drives) you can have what is essentially Ultra320 SCSI at a fraction of the cost.

          I'm just trying to save you guys money in the long run...

          1. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/

            By telling us how compatible SATA is?
            Don't you think that the follow on technology isn't going to be SAS?
            Ever heard of FC btw?

            There are many technologies available. SATA represents the low end technology; its good for some things and bad for others. RAID is one of those technologies that require intelligent drives. SATA drives are meant for desktops and simply lack the sophistication to be good devices in a RAID environment. Besides they are used to test durability and by being on the edge of technology they are less reliable. There is a reason why you pay a premium on SCSI and there is also a reason why it exists.

            1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

              "By telling us how compatible SATA is?
              Don't you think that the follow on technology isn't going to be SAS?
              Ever heard of FC btw?"

              You are under the mistaken belief that you are an enterprise and that you need enterprise grade equipment. You (the project) are no where close to enterprise demand or requirements and saying that you need SAS and FC for what is essentially a file server makes you look stupid, please get back in touch with realty and the scope of the project.

              "There is a reason why you pay a premium on SCSI and there is also a reason why it exists."

              Wouldn't it be smarter and better to split the CVS trees onto 2 or 3 low cost commodity servers then to dive into the high end and premium priced equipment just so you can keep everything on one server and play with high-end equipment? This way your CVS server won't take a shit when one of your Non-RAID JBOD SCSI disks fail.

              From you actions and comments on this thread you come of as not having though this thought, arrogant, and that your logic is skewed.

              1. By Anonymous Coward (12.223.129.46) on

                thought this through is what I meant to say, I guess I shoud heed my own advice, darm speel :-) checker. And I'm not saying you are, I don't known you, but that's what it feels like.

                1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                  I guess I shoud heed my own advice, darm speel :-) checker.

                  While you are pointing people to helpful dictionary.com URL's, you might like to look into the word "than".

                  1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

                    dysgraphia

              2. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                You are under the mistaken belief that you are an enterprise and that you need enterprise grade equipment.

                Have you ever logged into that cvs server to analyse its performance characteristics? You are under the mistaken belief that you know systems design better than people who have been developing Operating System software and deploying and tuning it with hardware considerations for years. Your "help" is embarrasing. What would anyone outside of the developers of this project know about this project and its requirements?!

                Here you can see a test that might not be equal, would first appear to be biased towards IDE, but most importantly shows that specs on paper mean little when a device is not being used as it was intended to be. It's an old test, but validates my point. The IDE disk is about 50% faster with sequential transfers from disk, than the SCSI disk but the SCSI disk has about 40% faster seek time. But how would you explain, given these numbers, the SCSI disk, that is three years older than the IDE disk, being about SEVEN TIMES FASTER than the IDE disk with a high I/O task? Inbuilt queuing and elevator sorting.

                SATA is designed for desktop use. It leans towards high transfer rates for single use. Newer SATA drives with TCQ allow for higher I/O use for the increasing stresses multitasking puts on disks with modern desktop operating systems and applications. But still SATA TCQ (for desktops) uses 8 times smaller queues than SCSI TCQ (for servers). Oh shock horror! Expensive SCSI design leans towards servers and cheap SATA design leans towards desktops! What is the World coming to?!

                That, Nikolas, is called being practical. And that is partly why SCSI still exists. I remember when people were proclaiming SCSI would soon be dead because IDE now allowed DMA transfers and transfers of more than one sector per interupt! People would do transfer rate tests that showed IDE doing a little better than SCSI and then seperately do seek time tests that were close to SCSI and claim that SCSI no longer had a great lead over IDE. Those ignorant people failed to realise the real draw card of SCSI. A SCSI drive could execute a command, while queuing commands from the SCSI bus and sort them for reduced head movement, all at the same time. These people doing dumb tests that had drive heads going start-end-start-end-start-end with a sythetic test that forced that to occur, failed to ever realise that a SCSI disk faced with such a scenario in the real World without having this forced onto it, could end up going start-start-start-end-end-end much faster.

                SCSI320 running faster than a Raptor with TCQ enabled in a scenario perhaps similar to what a busy cvs server might expect. Notice this fastest SATA drive last in this small group of SCSI drives?

                This way your CVS server won't take a shit when one of your Non-RAID JBOD SCSI disks fail.

                You can RAID the disks in a PowerVault 220S by using a RAID card like, oh I don't know, a PERC4/DC RAID controller? Like the one which has been donated?!

                From you actions and comments on this thread you come of as not having though this thought, arrogant, and that your logic is skewed.

                You have exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what really matters with this cvs server. You are focusing on numbers while ignoring the biggest problems that face something like a cvs server. Lots and lots of requests for lots of small amounts of data that are scattered all over the place. SATA, designed primarily with sequential transfers in mind, does not do as well as SCSI for this task.

                1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

                  "Have you ever logged into that cvs server to analyse its performance characteristics?"

                  No, I'm not a developer and therefor have no need for CVS except for downloading source code. from my perspective, as a downloader, it works no different then an glorified FTP server.

                  "You are under the mistaken belief that you know systems design better than people who have been developing Operating System software and deploying and tuning it with hardware considerations for years."

                  I think I was a bit to harsh in my reply to marco, sorry for that... but being an excellent software developer does not automatically make them an excellent systems administrator, integrator, or engineer, vice versa. I don't want to say that I'm better them him, I don't know him, but It feels like he has an agenda (high-end and costly SCSI system) that is not inline with what the project needs, want and need are two different things.

                  "Your "help" is embarrasing. What would anyone outside of the developers of this project know about this project and its requirements?!"

                  Your right, I don't fully know what the requirements are because I have nothing to do with the project. But from what I do know is the current server is a Pentium 3 with 1GB of RAM and is using 14 18GB Ultra160 SCSI drives in a RAID 5 configuration. Based on the specs I do have I could and will speculate that it is an off the shelf uni-proc P3 and that it has no PCI-X slots, only PCI, and that it's LAN connection is only 100MBit FDX. You can only go as fast as your slowest link and that is the LAN connection, the PCI bus, the memory bus (and how much you have), and lastly then CPU. The PCI bus is limited to 130MB/s and the LAN link is 12.5MB/s each way. I don't fully know what happens in a CVS repo/server but I suspect that it is similar to ftp, http (no dynamic content), nfs, or smb file server and these servers are always network bound and when not networked bound, say for example 1GBit and 10GBit links, they are bound by the PCI bus. A single 5400RPM IDE drive can saturate a 100MBit link and a 1GBit link can saturate the the PCI bus. Based on the system spec that where stated above It could be assumed that this system will not even be able to utilize Ultra320 to it's full potential because of the other system limitations.

                  "But how would you explain, given these numbers, the SCSI disk, that is three years older than the IDE disk, being about SEVEN TIMES FASTER than the IDE disk with a high I/O task?"

                  This has to do with SCSI's command queuing and low read/write times do to high RPM drives, 10,000+, with non-sequential / random access patterns SCSI will always beat IDE because IDE doesn't have ether of those features.

                  "SATA is designed for desktop use. It leans towards high transfer rates for single use. Newer SATA drives with TCQ allow for higher I/O use for the increasing stresses multitasking puts on disks with modern desktop operating systems and applications. But still SATA TCQ (for desktops) uses 8 times smaller queues than SCSI TCQ (for servers). Oh shock horror! Expensive SCSI design leans towards servers and cheap SATA design leans towards desktops! What is the World coming to?!"

                  SATA is designed for anything you want it to be. It is only a bus interface, like SCSI, and what really matters, both in SATA and SCSI, is what's connected to it. With drives such as the SATA based WDC Raptor it can be a valid competitor against SCSI, at this point only Ultra160, because the SATA interface supports most of the features that make the SCSI interface the niche product it is today.

                  P.S umm I not sure which SATA drive your talking about... but I'm basing all of my comments off of the new WDC 74GB Raptor, not the 36GB Raptor or any other SATA drive.

                  "That, Nikolas, is called being practical. And that is partly why SCSI still exists. I remember when people were proclaiming SCSI would soon be dead because IDE now allowed DMA transfers and transfers of more than one sector per interupt! People would do transfer rate tests that showed IDE doing a little better than SCSI and then seperately do seek time tests that were close to SCSI and claim that SCSI no longer had a great lead over IDE."

                  SCSI is not dead nor is it going to die anytime soon. It has it's niches, especially in the high-end and big iron markets. Those people obviously forgot to do random access pattern tests and again this has to do with the SCSI vs IDE bus. IDE will always loose when you compare this aspect. But with SATA-I, SATA-II, and SATA-III standards you will see in the coming years that it will dominate the entry-level server market and will have a sizable market in mid-level servers. This is do to simple economics and the reasons stated above (and below), you can quote me on that.

                  "Those ignorant people failed to realise the real draw card of SCSI. A SCSI drive could execute a command, while queuing commands from the SCSI bus and sort them for reduced head movement, all at the same time. These people doing dumb tests that had drive heads going start-end-start-end-start-end with a sythetic test that forced that to occur, failed to ever realise that a SCSI disk faced with such a scenario in the real World without having this forced onto it, could end up going start-start-start-end-end-end much faster."

                  Agree with you, see above. One thing many seem to be forgetting is that it's the job of a good, one that has has a real I/O controller, cache, etc., RAID controller to play traffic cop to efficiently sort and move data to and from the disks. This lessens the need for command queuing and low access times on the drives if it is done correctly.

                  "SCSI320 running faster than a Raptor with TCQ enabled in a scenario perhaps similar to what a busy cvs server might expect. Notice this fastest SATA drive last in this small group of SCSI drives?"

                  ? maybe it was in that link you gave me, sorry didn't read it (yet)... Ultra320/15K vs SATA-I/10K, no contest, SCSI will win all of the tests.

                  "You can RAID the disks in a PowerVault 220S by using a RAID card like, oh I don't know, a PERC4/DC RAID controller? Like the one which has been donated?!"

                  You can and it does but he stated that he wants to use it in a JBOD array configuration and that is just wrong. If one and only one of those drives failed it would take the entire array with it. JBOD is not RAID.

                  "You have exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what really matters with this cvs server. You are focusing on numbers while ignoring the biggest problems that face something like a cvs server. Lots and lots of requests for lots of small amounts of data that are scattered all over the place. SATA, designed primarily with sequential transfers in mind, does not do as well as SCSI for this task."

                  No I haven't. SATA paired with the right drives can do just about anything Ultra160 can. The main reason that I see for him wanting Ultra320 is that his Ultra160 backplane is dieing and that his Ultra160 Array is just about maxed out and he's using it and the $400 donated Ultra320 RAID card as an excuse to ask you for $12,500 so he can have his Ultra320 Array. This problem is easy to overcome with other cheaper cost effective solutions, SCSI or not. One of those could be splitting the CVS trees onto separate servers. Another option could be splitting the single RAID array into multiple separate RAID arrays by using more then one RAID card in the system and split the trees over the arrays, SATA is a good candidate for both of these solutions. In my day job if I came to the boss, well I don't have a boss as I am the boss so owner of the company, and said I need $12,000 for a new foobar and not justify it or justify why nothing else will work you know what will happen. I will be shot down - no questions asked. My bullshit meter is ringing like crazy and thats why I'm "putting up a fight" with his request. His comment about SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is troubling too as to my knowledge they are incompatible buses because one is parallel the other is serial (just like ATA is to SATA) so what's he going to do when he's bored with Ultra320 and wants that? hmm, ask you for another $12,000 maybe? Maybe its because of his close involvement with the SCSI subsystem in OpenBSD that he's blind anything other then SCSI, he just wants a new toy or whatever, I don't know. But I still stand by my earlier statement that I feel he has not throughly thought this through.

                  1. By marco (but not marco@) (149.169.52.82) on

                    you're making a lot of assumptions ... the biggest of which is that you know what you're talking about

                    the 220s is, by itself, a jbod enclosure. it relies on an external raid controller, like the perc 4/dc. they got the "jbod" because they already had the raid part, just like they clearly said

                    1. By Amir Mesry (208.34.41.180) amir.mesry@cadillacjack.com on

                      Marco, I was wondering, if you calculated the throughput of the drive vs the channel speed of the controller. IE Hitachi Ultrastar 70MB Per second would mean 5 drives before the scsi bus becomes over saturated, drives total 350MB Per second, 320MB per second is bus speed for the first channel, and leave one for a hotspare. I would suggest splitting the Jbod drives accross the controller's channels to get better total through put. Just a suggestion from someone who worked for LSI. I agree with using SCSI for this as it is the best technology for the job right now. SATA is a very new protocol and there are still bugs with it.

                  2. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                    from my perspective, as a downloader, it works no different then an glorified FTP server.

                    Yes, this punctuates everything you've said so far. You are looking at this from your limited point of view, while not realising that the picture is much larger and being taken care of by people who do understand the full situation. I am surprised that you have not been jumped on for this. I can only assume most people have stopped reading posts from you.

                    Manager: We need a version control system put in place for our devs.

                    IT admin: Okay, we will need fast access storage above all else for that.

                    Manager: Why?

                    IT admin: Version control systems tend to cause high I/O (lots of requests) because many files within the system tend to be requested at once, so as to put together any particular version to be given to a developer. Since developers don't always just ask for one file and since we have lots of developers, access time becomes the most important requirement.

                    Manager: What do you recommend?

                    IT admin: Disks with highest rotational speed for lowest latency, fastest head movement and top notch queuing and elevator sorting.

                    Manager: Elevator sorting?

                    IT admin: If a drive is requested to get a file from the start of the disk, then another from the end, another from the middle, another from the start and then lastly another from the middle again. Instead of the heads moving to the start, end, middle, start and then middle, elevator sorting allows the heads to go start, start, middle, middle, end. This dramatically reduces head movement and thus time to complete access for many pending files.

                    Manager: Oh, very interesting. So what are the best disks for this?

                    IT admin: At the moment, the drives with the fastest rotational speed, fastest heads and best queuing and sorting, are 15,000 rpm SCSI drives.

                    Manager: Oh don't we have scuzzy drives in our mail and database server?

                    IT admin: Yes, they are also areas that can be very high I/O hogs. SCSI is built for server use and tend to be more reliable also. The fact that the heads don't have to move as much probably also prolongs their life. Interestingly, this storage array could theoretically sustain extraordinarily high sequential transfer rates, but that will rarely, if ever, be needed by this system.

                    IT staff member: (just walked in, looking at notes on whiteboard) What!? That system alone can sustain over 600 megabytes per second! But you are only connecting it to a 1GHz P3 with just a single U320 controller in an ordinary PCI slot!?!? You see Mr. Thomas (Manager), what have I been telling you all this time? This guy should not be the admin of our infrastructure or trusted to spend any of our budget! The raw throughput this system could achieve, will be severely bottlenecked by the components used to connect to it! Blah blah blah, blah blah...

                    I think I was a bit to harsh in my reply to marco, sorry for that... but being an excellent software developer does not automatically make them an excellent systems administrator, integrator, or engineer, vice versa.

                    These guys, who develop a very well respected operating system, know how to spec storage for a core need of the development of that operating system.

                    I don't want to say that I'm better them him, I don't know him, but It feels like he has an agenda (high-end and costly SCSI system) that is not inline with what the project needs

                    YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT NEEDS.

                    Your right, I don't fully know what the requirements are because I have nothing to do with the project.

                    So, what you mean to say, is that you are not qualified to decide what best meets the current NEEDS of this project? Then why do we continue to hear so much crap from you?

                    But from what I do know is the current server is a Pentium 3 with 1GB of RAM and is using 14 18GB Ultra160 SCSI drives in a RAID 5 configuration. Based on the specs I do have I could and will speculate that it is an off the shelf uni-proc P3 and that it has no PCI-X slots, only PCI, and that it's LAN connection is only 100MBit FDX. You can only go as fast as your slowest link and that is the LAN connection, the PCI bus, the memory bus (and how much you have), and lastly then CPU.

                    Nikolas. Ever thought that raw throughput is not what is needed here? How about access time? What if access time is above all else, the biggest performance killer? The developers know about bottlenecks. They find them in software and develop better ways to reduce them by changing algorithms, for just one example. Not all bottlenecks are clearly defined by product specifications. A 15,000 rpm SCSI hard drive is capable of transfering data at high rates and having very fast seek times due to the fact that when a head is moved into place, it does not have to wait long for the desired sector to come around and move under the R/W head. But maybe, just maybe, transfer rates are not what matters most in the needs of this cvs server. Maybe it is access time that matters most. And when the cvs server is at its busiest, pending commands can be much more efficiently serviced thanks to SCSI. The raw bandwidth that this system is capable of, might merely be an added detail that goes hand-in-hand with this low-latency system, yet never be needed. Who knows!? Me? You? Certainly the developers spec'ing this system know.

                    I don't fully know what happens in a CVS repo/server but I suspect that it is similar to ftp, http (no dynamic content), nfs, or smb file server and these servers are always network bound and when not networked bound, say for example 1GBit and 10GBit links, they are bound by the PCI bus.

                    cvs

                    A Concurrent Versions System server, is capable of allowing changes to files to be recorded in such a way that you could request any version of the file that the system has recorded. To do this with storage efficiency, instead of full files of each version being stored, this system can allow differences to be stored. So when you request a particular version of a file, the original file plus differences may be requested and then combined to present you that version of the file. This has the storage system requesting original files and other files that combine to make up any particular version. When the system is busy, you might find that access time is what matters, not raw brute force transfer rates.

                    cvs is far different from ftp.

                    A single 5400RPM IDE drive can saturate a 100MBit link and a 1GBit link can saturate the the PCI bus.

                    In networking bandwidth, packets per second tend to be more meaningful than bytes per second. You could fully consume a CPU with lots of small packets while getting nowhere near the saturation point of the network interface or system bus. Even though that CPU would normally hardly break a sweat with typical packet size transfers and be able to saturate some other bottleneck. Same goes for high disk I/O demanding applications. If your application causes lots of requests per second, causing head movement, your transfer rates go out the window and reliance is placed more on how quickly those heads can move, how quickly the disk spins (faster spinning disk does not just allow faster transfer rates, but also allows faster access to a sector by reducing the time it takes for that sector to appear under the heads) and how efficiently the system can organise what order those requests should be carried out, to reduce back-and-forth head movement.

                    The fact that this system might be able to sustain a sequential bandwidth far greater than the network interface and system buses can handle is beside the point. Because that bandwidth might not be desired or ever requested. The point is access times. To get fast access times, it just so happens that you buy a system which also happens to be capable of high sustained sequential bandwidth.

                    This has to do with SCSI's command queuing and low read/write times do to high RPM drives, 10,000+, with non-sequential / random access patterns SCSI will always beat IDE because IDE doesn't have ether of those features.

                    That seven times faster SCSI disk, was 7,200 rpm, just like the IDE disk. But yes, SCSI kicks arse for high I/O. A busy cvs server can be a high I/O demand application.

                    SATA is designed for anything you want it to be. It is only a bus interface, like SCSI, and what really matters, both in SATA and SCSI, is what's connected to it. With drives such as the SATA based WDC Raptor it can be a valid competitor against SCSI, at this point only Ultra160, because the SATA interface supports most of the features that make the SCSI interface the niche product it is today.

                    What a load of tripe. Every design has strong and weak points. Often when trying to strengthen one area, you end up weakening another. SATA is designed for desktop use, that is its main market. SCSI is designed for server and high end workstation use and that is where it is marketed. Did you notice at storagereview, the SCSI drive running a high I/O benchmark about 65% faster than the SATA 74GB Raptor? SATA may be getting used a lot now in server use, but I have almost always seen SCSI as an option in those same systems, for the higher end.

                    P.S umm I not sure which SATA drive your talking about... but I'm basing all of my comments off of the new WDC 74GB Raptor, not the 36GB Raptor or any other SATA drive.

                    Did you look at the storagereview links? I linked to the 74GB Raptor.

                    SCSI is not dead nor is it going to die anytime soon. It has it's niches, especially in the high-end and big iron markets.

                    When was the last time you touched "big iron"?

                    Those people obviously forgot to do random access pattern tests and again this has to do with the SCSI vs IDE bus. IDE will always loose when you compare this aspect.

                    High I/O, does not mean that the data flows at a high rate, it means that there are a high number of requests (often small). Lots of requests all over the disc cause... random accesses. cvs can be high I/O and I imagine OpenBSD's core cvs server can get pretty busy at certain times of the year.

                    But with SATA-I, SATA-II, and SATA-III standards you will see in the coming years that it will dominate the entry-level server market and will have a sizable market in mid-level servers. This is do to simple economics and the reasons stated above (and below), you can quote me on that.

                    I don't doubt that SATA will continue to get better, but so will SCSI. Most importantly though, is that OpenBSD's needs are immediate! Coming years? They need storage NOW!

                    One thing many seem to be forgetting is that it's the job of a good, one that has has a real I/O controller, cache, etc., RAID controller to play traffic cop to efficiently sort and move data to and from the disks. This lessens the need for command queuing and low access times on the drives if it is done correctly.

                    Cache is only good if it can be exploited. Cache can also INCREASE access times if the data is not found within the cache. Because the cache is first checked, then it is requested from the platters, placed into the cache and then given to the requesting application. Also, in these situations where cache is of little benefit, the larger the cache the worse the access time due to greater latency caused by searching through a larger cache.

                    If a drive does not do command queuing, then when the drive is busy it's bus is idle and when it's bus is busy the drive is idle. For an access time reliant server, do you want a disk system that has a duty cycle split between disk and bus that has at all times one of them idle? There is latency getting commands to go from the controller on the motherboard to the controller on the disk. This can be alleviated by having queuing on the drive. Thank God IDE finally has queuing coming with the latest SATA drives. After all these years!

                    ? maybe it was in that link you gave me, sorry didn't read it (yet)... Ultra320/15K vs SATA-I/10K, no contest, SCSI will win all of the tests.

                    What is the fastest hard disk drive you can buy? Whether by fastest you are referring to transfer rates, access times or both? A 15k rpm SCSI drive. The OpenBSD project just wants what is best for their most important core server.

                    You can and it does but he stated that he wants to use it in a JBOD array configuration and that is just wrong.

                    Actually, I don't recall reading Marco state that he was going to use it in JBOD config. And notice that he also mentions the use of a donated RAID card? Why buy something more flash, with built-in RAID when he already has a good RAID card to go with plain SCSI storage?

                    No I haven't. SATA paired with the right drives can do just about anything Ultra160 can.

                    That's great. Now how about considering that they are going with U320 drives?

                    This problem is easy to overcome with other cheaper cost effective solutions, SCSI or not.

                    SCSI currently provides the best access times. It also provides the best transfer rates, but I don't think that is highest on their priority list. The use of SCSI-IDE bridges is a nasty hack for an important server, which would increase risk of failure.

                    One of those could be splitting the CVS trees onto separate servers.

                    Hang on. You have demonstrated and admitted that you know little about cvs and it's requirements, but now you are giving OpenBSD developers, developers by the way, who are currently developing a better OpenCVS system at the source code level, advice on setting a cvs server up?

                    My bullshit meter is ringing like crazy and thats why I'm "putting up a fight" with his request.

                    The problem is, that you don't know about cvs or OpenBSD project needs. So you're bullshit meter should be switched off. You should take your fight elsewhere. I think everyone else here is sick of hearing your ill thought out bullshit.

                    But I still stand by my earlier statement that I feel he has not throughly thought this through.

                    You are ignorant of the needs in this case. So how could you know whether this has been throughly thought through?

                    1. By mirabile (212.185.103.56) on http://mirbsd.mirsolutions.de/?anargeek

                      Oh, sorry but CVS saves all revisions, diffs etc. of one file in
                      a working copy in the same file, named as the original with ,v
                      appended.

                      You know, CVS originally was some shell kludge around RCS.

                      1. By Anonymous Coward (203.166.96.239) on

                        Oh, sorry but CVS saves all revisions, diffs etc. of one file in a working copy in the same file, named as the original with ,v appended.
                        
                        And files that get appended to every now and then, on an on-going basis, never get fragmented!
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    2. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

                      I did a little basic research into cvs servers and you want to know what the number one hardware requirement is? It states very clearly ("info "(cvs)"" repo. > remote repo. > serv-req.) that large amounts of random access memory, yes ram, is the number one requirement, He only has 1GB in the system. When you only have 1GB of ram what do you think the system is going to do when it runs out? It's going to hit the swap file like a 54th floor jumper hits pavement, it's very clear now why the disk subsystem couldn't keep up with the load. He should have upgraded the ram in the system, $1,400 for 4GB, and fixed the SCSI backplane but instead he rapes the community out of 12 thousand dollars for a new toy.

                      The rest of are debate about disks is irrelevant.

                      Have a nice day Patrick,
                          Nikolas Britton


                      1. By Otto Moerbeek (82.197.192.49) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net

                        Do you really think Theo and the rest of us cannot see the difference between a swapping machine and a machine that is hitting I/O limits because of other reasons?

                        You say you have respect for us, but in reality all you are saying is we're a bunch of hobbyists that like to play with expensive hardware.

                        You seem to have some special sense to know the current performance and requirements of cvs.openbsd.org. You repeatedly say the people that control and use the machine do not have the insight to be able know what the machine's requirements are and to analyse the performance problems we are seeing. We, who develop the OS the machine is running.

                        This is all so pathetic I'm begining to wonder why I even post this. I probably should have not. It;s just feeding a troll.

                        1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

                          "Do you really think Theo and the rest of us cannot see the difference between a swapping machine and a machine that is hitting I/O limits because of other reasons?"

                          I know they can tell the difference, I'm not debating this.

                          "You say you have respect for us, but in reality all you are saying is we're a bunch of hobbyists that like to play with expensive hardware."

                          At this point, no I have no respect for the key developers of the OpenBSD project because the more I dig the more I feel I've been lied to. They may need the array but I do not think it was for the reasons they stated.

                          "You seem to have some special sense to know the current performance and requirements of cvs.openbsd.org. You repeatedly say the people that control and use the machine do not have the insight to be able know what the machine's requirements are and to analyze the performance problems we are seeing. We, who develop the OS the machine is running."

                          I know they can tell the difference and again, the more I look and analyze it the more disparities I find. At the start I asked marco to justify why this is needed, he never did and this is reason enough for me to question why he needs it.

                          "This is all so pathetic I'm beginning to wonder why I even post this. I probably should have not. It;s just feeding a troll."

                          I'm not trolling, I'm just not going to blindly following what they say.

                          1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

                            I know they can tell the difference and again, the more I look and analyze it the more disparities I find.

                            So far, the point you've raised regarding perceived "disparities", amount to maximum sustained transfer rate capabilities versus various bottlenecks. Yet people have stated that high IO matters more, NOT sustained transfer rates.

                            Fact: High IO absolutely kills transfer rates in physical hard disk systems when heads have to move. While heads are moving, they do not read or write, meaning that maximum transfer rates cannot be realised. The duty cycle between time transfering data and idle time waiting to access data, moves more and more towards the idle time as IO goes up and file sizes go down. If queuing and elevator sorting are not used, then this just becomes ridiculous.

                            Solution: Whether IDE or SCSI, high IO is going to mean that maximum transfer rates will not be attainable. So the best solution is to choose the disk system that has the best high IO performance. SCSI is DESIGNED for these scenarios, because that is what is typical of the demand on servers. IDE was NOT designed for this, because it is an end user technology. Newer SATA drives now support TCQ due to heavier loads placed on drives due to modern multitasking operating systems, but these SATA drives are still not designed to meet the high IO demands that SCSI is designed for and besides that they only go to 10,000 rpm and their seek times are slower.

                            So accounting for the best performance and security, the fastest SCSI drives and enclosure that the project can afford, along with a good RAID card is the best solution for the money. This is pretty basic stuff.

                            So as to bring this to a quick close, could you please summarize all disparities you have found, in point form? Please provide for each:

                            * The disparity

                            * Evidence of it

                            * Why it is wrong

                            * Your solution

                            At the end of the day, OpenBSD is developed to an extraordinarily high quality for next to nothing, by selfless individuals, many of which do it on their own time and dime. If their time can be more efficiently served with the fastest array on the planet, and the community of developers and users are willing to pay for that, then fantastic. Even if they were just wanting a neat techie toy to play with, I would not mind throwing money towards it because they deserve a lot, given the work they put into OpenBSD. Hell, I'd be happy to buy pizza and beer for these fine folks.

                            Lighten up will you?

                          2. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/

                            Even though I promised myself I was not going to respond to this nonsense anymore...

                            The reason for a RAID array are plentiful and all most of them have been recorded throughout the posts. If you cared enough to actually do some research you would have found numerous posts of key OpenBSD folks that talk about cvs.openbsd.org and what it does. Let me recap some of the reasons:
                            * Practicality
                            * Known stability
                            * Service contract
                            * Future growth
                            * Redundancy
                            * High capacity * Environment monitoring
                            * Everything hotplug
                            * High IOP throughput
                            * High performance
                            I don't know who you are but I do know what you are. Besides calling me a liar and cheater I have seen nothing constructive coming out of your fingers. Frankly I am amazed on how you question my integrity. Have you ever thought of the possibility that just maybe there are other reasons for buying this type of equipment? Has it ever crossed your mind that there might be some more OpenBSD folks that have experience with these machines? Could it be therefore that it is a really practical solution for us? Could it also be that Marco did not come up with this by himself but had the necessary people work with him to come up with this? Maybe even Theo? Could it even be that the current similar U160 setup is no longer cutting it and it simply is a natural upgrade path? No, of course you haven't because you are too busy "standing up" and fighting the "struggle".

                            Based on your postings it is also apparent that you are a computer enthusiast who likes to goop together some hardware. I find that amusing too but not when my most critical data is at stake. The fact that you have never worked with high-end hardware does not warrant your insults. For those of us who have worked in the largest of data-centers this is a practical and, believe it or not, economical solution.

                            And before you go off again and tell the world that Marco needs a toy let me make sure you are aware that I have racks full of these things to play with at work. I also have racks full of big iron servers to play with. Oh and I also have FC equipment available. My sandbox is pretty cool. I will not see anything in return for this besides a reliable cvs machine and insults from people like yourself.

                            I'll waste one more paragraph on this. I tested several SATA RAID controllers and found out that they are not reliable. Besides reliability issues I also noticed that most SATA RAID controllers are slower than a single SATA disk. But oh why? Please tell us more. Well, maybe that has to do with the fact that SATA does not queue IOs and therefore a RAID array is as slow as it slowest disk. But what about this new TCQ thing? Well, that one is not implemented in any SATA RAID card because there is no clear spec on it; it is all vendor specific hardware that require vendor specific drivers. On RAID cards we like to be able to mix vendors since it is not practical and feasible to have the same type of drives.

                            I can go on for a while but I have wasted enough time on your insults.

                          3. By Anonymous Coward (203.166.96.236) on

                            I know they can tell the difference and again, the more I look and analyze it the more disparities I find. At the start I asked marco to justify why this is needed, he never did and this is reason enough for me to question why he needs it.
                            
                            Hey Nikolas, go here and choose "SR File Server DriveMark 2002".
                            
                            See any disparities there? Find your fastest SATA drive... notice that
                            although it moves into SCSI territory, SCSI by far dominates the top end
                            and IDE (including SATA) occupies (I think dominate would not be the
                            right word here) the bottom end.
                            
                            So are Marco and the others specing out this system, justified in
                            choosing not only SCSI, but U320 SCSI? Bearing in mind that high IO
                            reduces transfer rates much more on IDE/SATA than it does on SCSI and
                            that the raw available bus bandwidth for any given drive, regardless of
                            SCSI or SATA, will not become saturated under those conditions?
                            
                            Access times matter most to them and they seem to have chosen to spec
                            the storage with that in mind.
                            
                            Ever thought that the fastest SCSI drives available, come in U320 and
                            that is why U320 drives are being purchased?
                            
                            
                            

                      2. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

                        "It states very clearly ("info "(cvs)"" repo. > remote repo. > serv-req.) that large amounts of random access memory, yes ram, is the number one requirement,"

                        duh, no it does not. actually, it clearly states, "-a server with 32M of memory or even less can handle a fairly large source tree with a fair amount of activity." then goes on to mention you need "slightly more than the size of the sources in a single directory, or two megabytes, whichever is larger." for a checkout, or for diff "For example, if you want to check in a file which is 10 megabytes, you should have 100 megabytes of memory on the machine doing the checkin" 10 megabyte files are pretty far and few between in the openbsd repo, and they don't exactly get checked in frequently. 1GB is plenty. notably, it'd be pretty obvious if the machine were swapping.

                        that entire section fails to mention any consideration for disk setup. in fact, based on that section only, one could conclude that placing the cvs repo on a tape drive would be a reasonable setup.

                        but all this coming from a guy who thinks a cvs server is no different than an ftp server. "from my perspective, as a downloader, it works no different then an glorified FTP server." here's a clue. from my perspective, as a developer, it works very much differently from an ftp server. hmm, what does an ftp server do? it serves up large files, sequentially. what does a cvs server do? it *modifies* many small files. that's read, modify, write.

                        besides the fact that this is also the machine that's the main nfs server. you know what a big performance killer with nfs is? access time.

                  3. By Amir Mesry (208.34.41.180) on

                    "You can and it does but he stated that he wants to use it in a JBOD array configuration and that is just wrong. If one and only one of those drives failed it would take the entire array with it. JBOD is not RAID" Your mixing terms and not fully understanding what he was saying, or just nitpicking for the hell of it. JBOD is AKA Storage Enclosure AKA PowerVault AKA JMR Fortra and so on. The word array when used in conjuction with RAID Card usually means the Drives in the JBOD are part of a RAID Level Array.

                    1. By Nikolas Britton (12.223.129.46) freebsd@nbritton.org on

                      "Your mixing terms and not fully understanding what he was saying, or just nitpicking for the hell of it. JBOD is AKA Storage Enclosure AKA PowerVault AKA JMR Fortra and so on. The word array when used in conjuction with RAID Card usually means the Drives in the JBOD are part of a RAID Level Array."


                      Didn't understand what he meant by "JBOD with U320 disks", my bad.



  22. By Anthony R (68.145.103.21) on

    If I remember to, I will start posting as Anthony R as there are apparently two Anthonys around here now. I'm the one that's been around for a while... For the record, I have no idea what the CVS server needs so I'm taking Marco's word for it.

  23. By Anonymous Coward (67.78.160.141) on

    I BET THE COMPLAINERS also complain about public TV pledge drives. WHAT A BUNCH OF WHINERS put up or shut up. AS to the 2nd guessing, a bunch of back seat drivers... So what if the solution is not OPTIMUM, some paint on the old barn is better than no paint. At least Marco is trying. geez some of you should be really embarasseed by the comments, and 2nd guessing. Openbsd is not a "not-profit" corporation as we understand it.... But we still donatee to it, and thats okay also. That should mean donating money to the parent, with a comment should be easily transferred to any account any way Theo wants without tax restrictions....

  24. By Wes Williams (68.213.136.249) on

    Just to chime in and say that I believe the U320 to be the best solution and fully trust that the maintainers know what in the hell they are doing.

    There are likely more of us that agree with the use of SCSI for this project but just aren't as vocal [whiney] as those seeming to use this board as a tear duct.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.139.14.28) on

      Agreed.

    2. By rainer_d (62.158.173.45) rainer@ultra-secure.de on

      I also agree, totally - and I'd like to add that all this chatter about SATA et.al. is totally silly. I don't know shit about the load and usage pattern of this server - but if someone who knows decides that SATA doesn't cut it, well, what shall I say ? Call him a liar?
      The array is going to serve small files, randomly picked (mostly, I presume, from comments), so anybody who has done some research other than comparing prices and capacity can do his own math about how a SATA-solution might or might not perform.
      Yes, you can cobble together a 4 TB "file-server" for less than 5 grand today - but that's not the purpose of this machine - and from my experience, these "solutions" can be a real PITA to maintain.

    3. By Blake (81.57.19.80) on two one one two dot net

      Gotta agree with you on this one. This application is all about I/O performance. Anybody that reads StorageReview knows that with the possible exception of the WD Raptor (10k rpm SATA disk), indexing/data-crunching tasks like databases and CVS servers are pretty much the exclusive territory of high-end SCSI. Seagate has even recently released a laptop-sized SCSI drive called the Savvio that capitalizes on the tiny platter size of portable disks to deliver crazy IO benchmarks, although the drive is definately a one-trick pony designed to do this and only this. An added perk is that it puts out a lot less heat than pretty much any other SCSI drive on the market today so it is ideal for high-end blade servers doing this sort of work.

  25. By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) slash@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/

    Thanks everyone!! We really appreciate the community stepping up big and quick!
    For you complainers out there you might want to learn from these folks who selflessly donated for a cause they deemed important. Here is the "got it" email: From: slash@peereboom.us
    Subject: cvs.openbsd.org upgrade, we're there!!
    Date: March 15, 2005 6:31:49 PM CST
    To: misc@openbsd.org

    We received over $12500 USD for the purchase of a brand new RAID array for cvs.openbsd.org! I want to thank everyone who stepped up and donated some of their hard earned cash. I collected names from several folks in OpenBSD who manage various accounts so if I missed you please let me know and I'll correct it. I also got some emails from folks who sent money orders and have not been able to collect on them yet.

    We really, really appreciate all the donations!!

    Here is the list of names in no particular order of the folks who donated:
    Blake Willis Christian Jones Sam Nicholson Mike Tancsa Matthieu Herrb Nick Humphrey Michael Shalayeff Andres Martinez Olivier Matthey Astar Computer Consulting Daniel Zinngrabe Sean Hafeez Alex Valentine Raymond DeJean Donald Sinclair Jason Napoli Daniel Trombley Wes Williams Andrew David Anthony Roberts Global Freelance Brandon Davies Adrian Basescu J Scott Deacon Robert Copsey Ronald Nowling Yan Watkins John R Danks Stephan Tesch Dominic Crowson John Katagawa Brian Falk Ido Admon Matthew J Rowley Garance A Drosehn Georg Wendenburg Loic Tortay Rob Bricheno Steven Fettig Anywhere Technology Corp. Mike Miller Mark Patruck Patrick Bergamin Kevin R. Smith Eric Moore Teoh Cy Boon Dean Schuetze Sam Smith Francois Chambaud Mark Hesselink Scott Ellis Jorg Willekens Matthew Weaver Sean Underwood John Breese Derek Morr Jason Meltzer Noah Aklilu Gregory Zentkovich Stefan Wollny SMAT Engineering LLC Miklos Koevari Kirk Strauser Damian Gerow Matthias Herrmann Philip Dicke Anthony Ten Broeck Hugo Lombard Adam Getchell Keith Scott Chris Ferebee Keith Scott Gregory Steuck Jon Gordon Sean Richardson Benedikt Heinen Jason Santos Lars-Erik Lemonis-Nicolas David Steinberg Benedikt Heinen Karsten McMinn Evan Seitz Mark Peoples Peter Ibsen Hansen Ian McWilliam Nico Meijer Rodolfo Gouveia Alf Schlichting Peter Ibsen Hansen Ian McWilliam Nico Meijer Lars Cleary Rodolfo Gouveia micro systems Xavier Mertens Chris Murphy Stone Networking Ronald Smith Jonah Benton Greg Girczyc David Cathcart Fredric Cohen The Violin Case Jan Joris Vereijken Masoud Sharbiani Wijnand Wiersma Pascal Lalonde Cristian Bratu Masoud Sharbiani Dan Price Ricardo R. Aliwalas Kurt Miller Erik Tigerholm Okan Demirmen Nicholas Marriott Jan Joris Vereijken Johan Torin Otto Moerbeek Sean Ellis John Pugh Wolfgang Anger Benjamin Crowell rob casson Emilio Perea Kenneth Stox Garhan Attebury James Bishop Sean Ellis Howard Owen Ferret Ferret James Raden Otto Moerbeek Dave Shanker Bill Saunders Robert Thrush Thorsten Glaser Marco Feenstra Jean-Gerard Pailloncy Jonathan Hart Weil Tristan Mike Gruber Abraham Al-Saleh Marco Feenstra Chad Remesch Mykhaylo Shalayev Craig Hammond James Herbert Sjoert Bakker Jelle Posthuma Isak Lyberth Oliver Morais Michael Erdely Vikram Kulkarni joseph r franklin Ross Lonstein Stuart Henderson Eddy Carroll Simon Slater Jeff Martin Carson Chittom Jelle Posthuma Sjoert Bakker James Herbert Gernot Poerner Christian R¸ger Oliver Morais Craig Hammond Michael Erdely Jamie Eubank Poetic Pollution Dimitri Georganas Vikram Kulkarni joseph r franklin Doug Clements Chris Bensend Brandon J Creighton peter varga Ross Lonstein Johan Torin Stuart Henderson Eddy Carroll Simon Slater Marco Peereboom

    1. By Anthony Roberts (68.145.103.21) on

      Well, there goes my last few tatters of anonymity. I figured it would show up on the donations page (so I don't mind) but I wasn't expecting it to be posted here. :)

      I've no doubt that everything that makes working on OpenBSD less annoying will result in better software for everyone. I've worked with overloaded CVS servers, and "annoying" is probably the most polite of the words that comes to mind.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

      "For you complainers out there you might want to learn from these folks who selflessly donated for a cause they deemed important."

      The only thing to be learned here is that you only have respect those that kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. And that many in the OpenBSD community become the very trolls they accuse others of being when someone calls you out for it. Be proud, you could have made much more effective use of those funds and you know it.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.125.5) on

        The only people I see continuing to complain here, are people who have shown little understanding of the current needs of this OpenBSD server.

        You keep going on and on about raw throughput and associated bottlenecks and yet keep side-stepping the access time issue that people are bringing up.

        You don't seem to want to address the thought that raw sustained throughput might not actually be near the top of the priorities for this need. Have you ever seen the overall transfer rates for lots of randomly accessed data? With typical tests, my IDE drives typically drop by about 50 times when comparing sequential transfer rates to random transfer rates.

        Yet in light of all of this (your lack of understanding and valid points being raised), you continue to claim that Marco has an agenda, has not thought this through and that users willing to contribute to this fine OS are lemmings.

        You know you don't have to be such a waste of time. You can choose to do things that you can be proud of.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (71.0.126.14) on

          You seem to have me confused with someone else who had similar concerns. There are a few of us that have posted them here, which is vindication that I am not alone as seeing this expense as ungodly. Stop trying to make us the same individual. Though is funny to watch all of the modding down based on the who, rather than the what has been said.

          I don't think Marco has an "agenda". I think he's not being as fiscally responsible as he should be and throwing contributors money away on bloated equiptment costs. I am not in favor of any specific solution, I am only in favor of something more economical. It seems to me that the FTP server and the AnonCVS servers would need the highest performance, while the main CVS repository, serving only developers and mirrors, would need the most secure redundancy.

          I also feel Marco has been rude to and about anyone who has questioned him on this, along with several other posters here. The very fact Marco sought to chastise us and call us "complainers" in his thank you to the contributors, to hold us up as needing to learn something from them, shows the very level of arrogance and godhead that forced me to second guess his judgement to begin with. It also shows a blatant level of wounded egoism to go out of his way just to mention us.

          It has forced me to consider that from my perspective, and probably a few other individuals reading all of this, that contributing to OpenBSD is probably best done only through CD sales and direct hardware donataions. Or at least directly through Theo, who I trust to better dictate selflessly the real necessities of OpenBSD, seperate from the ideal equiptment he would like to see, i.e. "Over here is what we need. But over here is what we would like to get."

          1. By Anonymous Coward (24.139.14.114) on

            http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=111065075516226&w=2

            Please read. Theo knows what is going on and the PowerVault is replacing a
            similarly spec'd machine.

          2. By Chris (24.76.170.207) on

            Basically what you're saying is "I don't actually know what setup would meet the requirements for less money, but I think the current amount is just Too Much, so I'm going to keep believing that there is a magical superior setup out there and that they're wasting money. Regardless of what anybody says to me".

            It is lucky for me and everyone else using OpenBSD that the developers don't listen to people like you and just keep doing what they think is best. But hey, it's only worked for about 10 years, so maybe they don't know what they're doing.

            There's a difference between concientious objection and just being difficult.

      2. By CyBoon (192.245.59.130) on

        Common troll. Not to be taken seriously.

        To disprove my statement, the party at 71.0.126.14 need only furnish
        answers to the following qestions (And a simple guide to what is
        required from his/her answers is given as a convenience):

        1. Justify the statement:

        "It seems to me that the FTP server and the AnonCVS servers
        would need the highest performance, while the main CVS
        repository, serving only developers and mirrors, would need
        the most secure redundancy."

        A good answer will contain:
        - definitions of 'performance' and 'secure redundancy' in terms
        of measureable data points for the services so mentioned.

        - Data collected at a site (or set of sites) comparable to the
        OpenBSD site for the metrics defined above and a description
        of the protocol used for collecting the data.

        - Justification of the statement made with reference to the
        data so presented.


        2. Justify the statement:

        " I think he's not being as fiscally responsible as he should
        be and throwing contributors money away on bloated equiptment
        costs."

        A good answer will include:
        - A proposed alternative spec, including price quotes from a
        reputable supplier, which clearly demonstrates a cost savings
        of at least 5% as compared to the one proposed by marco.

        - A set of contingency plans to be used over a reasonably
        estimated lifespan for the proposed alternative, including
        cost and time estimates for when something goes wrong with
        the proposed alternative spec.

        - Justification of the statements made by demonstrating that
        the proposed alternative is more cost effective to acquire,
        deploy and maintain.


        These are simple questions that trolls simply won't answer.

  26. By Blake (81.57.19.80) on two one one two dot net

    Y'all seen this this Dell UK promo for PowerVault boxes? Buy 1 get 1 free on drives until the end of the month...

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]