On 10/13/05, Kris Maglione <bsdaemon at comcast dot net> wrote:
> Do you have any input on Dragonfly? I haven't done any testing or seen
> any benchmarks, is doing some good work with the networking stack.
> Within a few months, they claim that they will have eliminated Giant and
> made the entire stack threaded... I'm not sure whether this will affect
> single processor performance in a good or bad way, but it should be
> great for SMP. At the very least, it merits the same level of testing
> that 5.3 got, though I'm not sure that I like the idea of the beta
> flip-floping between BSDs between releases.
Since pf is the best firewalling option, and at a minimum, ALTQ and
pfsync/CARP either don't exist or don't seem to be stable on DFly (not
sure about pf in general), I don't think it's a good option.
It's not nearly as well tested or widely deployed as any of the other
BSD's. Hardware support is better than FreeBSD 4.x, but not even
close to 6.x. What hardware is supported isn't widely tested. As an
indicator of what kind of issues we'd run into, pfsense just uses
DFly's installer and ended up running into all kinds of nasty bugs
that kept some people from successfully installing with certain
hardware (which have mostly been resolved, but regardless...).
from one of my other posts on this thread:
"I wouldn't consider DragonFly at all at this point. Too many things
won't compile without a whole lot of effort. It'd be a real pain to
get together a working image. It's probably the fastest of the bunch,
but that's about all it has going for it."
and I'm involved, to some extent, with DFly, or at least the installer
Scott, pfsense founder, is even a DFly committer and still chose Free.
Just too many issues in pf, pfsync/CARP, and ALTQ to consider DFly.
Aside from the other issues.