LWN.net Logo

NetBSD 5.0 released

From:  Soren Jacobsen <snj-AT-NetBSD.org>
To:  netbsd-announce-AT-NetBSD.org
Subject:  Announcing NetBSD 5.0
Date:  Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:49:50 -0700
Message-ID:  <20090429214950.GE4061@blef.org>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

On behalf of the NetBSD developers, I am proud to announce that
NetBSD 5.0, the thirteenth release of the NetBSD operating system,
is now available.

NetBSD 5.0 features greatly improved performance and scalability on
modern multiprocessor (SMP) and multi-core systems.  Multi-threaded
applications can now efficiently make use of more than one CPU or core,
and system performance is much better under I/O and network load.

This improved performance is the result of a rewritten threading
subsystem based on a 1:1 threading model, new kernel synchronization
primitives, kernel preemption, a rewritten scheduler implementation,
real-time scheduling extensions, processor sets, and dynamic CPU sets
for thread affinity.  Almost all core kernel subsystems, like virtual
memory, memory allocators, file system frameworks for major file
systems, and others were audited and overhauled to make use of highly
concurrent algorithms.

In addition to scalability and performance improvements, a significant
number of major features have been added. Some highlights are: a preview
of metadata journaling for FFS file systems (known as WAPBL, Write
Ahead Physical Block Logging), the 'jemalloc' memory allocator, the
X.Org X11 distribution instead of XFree86 on a number of ports, the
Power Management Framework, ACPI suspend/resume support on many
laptops, write support for UDF file systems, the Automated Testing
Framework, the Runnable Userspace Meta Program framework, Xen 3.3
support for both i386 and amd64, POSIX message queues and
asynchronous I/O, and many new hardware device drivers.

For full details, please see the release notes at:

    http://www.NetBSD.org/releases/formal-5/NetBSD-5.0.html

ISO images can be downloaded using BitTorrent, and we encourage users
who wish to install via ISO images to take advantage of this, as the
images are very well seeded.

    http://www.NetBSD.org/mirrors/torrents/

Complete source and binaries for NetBSD 5.0 are available for download
at many sites around the world. A list of download sites providing FTP,
AnonCVS, and other services may be found at:

    http://www.NetBSD.org/mirrors/

We are very grateful to all of those who donated during the 2007 fund
drive, which brought us many of the great advances found in 5.0.  For
more information on how you can help NetBSD, see

    http://www.NetBSD.org/donations/

The NetBSD Foundation would like to thank all those who have
contributed code, hardware, documentation, funds, colocation for our
servers, web pages and other documentation, release engineering, and
other resources over the years. More information on the people who
make NetBSD happen is available at:

    http://www.NetBSD.org/people/

We would like to especially thank the University of California at
Berkeley and the GNU Project for particularly large subsets of code
that we use. We would also like to thank the Internet Systems
Consortium Inc., the Network Security Lab at Columbia University's
Computer Science Department, and Ludd (Luleaa Academic Computer
Society) computer society at Luleaa University of Technology for
current colocation services.



(Log in to post comments)

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted Apr 30, 2009 14:48 UTC (Thu) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]

In this presentation there is an interesting information :
http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img2.html

The patch against NetBSD 4.0 is more than 7 millions lines !!!
There is also some benchmarks agains FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora 10).

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted Apr 30, 2009 19:47 UTC (Thu) by alecs1 (subscriber, #46699) [Link]

7 million is a lot. I didn't even think the whole of NetBSD is 7 mil. I didn't find further information, but is there summary for this?

And those benchmarks are interesting.

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 1, 2009 2:28 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

A seven million line patch file does not mean seven million changed lines of code.

For unified diff patch files, a file with one line changed will result in three lines of header, six lines of context, the old version of the line and the new version of the line. That is the worst case though: for larger changes, the overhead is more reasonable.

That said, a seven million line patch is still an impressive amount of change.

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted Apr 30, 2009 20:22 UTC (Thu) by simlo (subscriber, #10866) [Link]

Can anyone explain to me why one should use FreeBSD or NetBSD over Linux? (OpenBSD is obvious.) Stability? ZFS? I ran across one the other when setting up ntpd with a GPS: Apparently Linux does have a PPS (Pulse Per Second Interface) build in. But otherwise: Are there big advantages to *BSD?

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted Apr 30, 2009 21:53 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]

Do you make it a habit to toss lit matches into cans of gasoline/petrol?

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 1, 2009 6:51 UTC (Fri) by simlo (subscriber, #10866) [Link]

I have unfortunately done that a few times :-( It is not my intention. I know nothing of *BSD. There more I know the less I will probably insult that community...

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 1, 2009 20:25 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

LWN is actually a safe enough place to ask such a question. Not all Linux or general OS forums exhibit such equanimity, however.

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted Apr 30, 2009 22:12 UTC (Thu) by lmctl (guest, #58352) [Link]

I can't comment on why one should use *BSD, but I can point to few
advantages of *BSD systems:

- documentation -- it's here and it's very well written, everything from
kernel interfaces, hardware/software devices to commands is documented
(and yes, it's up to date -- mostly because system is monolithic and
doesn't change that often)

- stability/reproductability of features, driver behaviour, etc. between
releases; bsd systems do not (or more precisely - not that often)
undergo internal rewrites that are somewhat typical to linux,
thus (from my experience) regressions in drivers are more rare

There are other points, but not that important (depending, of course, who
you ask):

- system is very well architected -- when you look at structure
of kernel internals it's sheer beauty, you might not agree with (some
say) ancient coding style but architecture/layering of system is top
notch (IMVHO); same can be said about pkgsrc (external software
management)

- thare are few "rewrite-and-improve" attempts, there are no multiple
ieee80211 stacks, firewire stacks, multiple drivers for same hw, etc.
(with lone exception of packet filter); there are no multiple
interfaces to do same thing (there is little to no experimentation,
think /proc, /sys, /debug, /configfs, wext, nlcfg, ...)

- it's "traditional" monolithic unix, buildable from single source tree,
clearly separated from non-system software

For me, netbsd reminds me glory days of sco unix sysvr3.2 (IIRC), the unix
I stared with (but netbsd is _much_ better).

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 1, 2009 5:33 UTC (Fri) by muwlgr (guest, #35359) [Link]

There was a time when NetBSD had smallest requirement for RAM and disk space compared to other freely-available *BSDs and Linux distributions of that time. So it fitted well for limited hardware (older or embedded systems).

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 1, 2009 6:34 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Ya..

The smallest I've ever gotten Linux to run was either... Old IBM Thinkpad with i386 that I got a ancient Linux 2.0 to run on. No math co-processor and 8MB of RAM made that pretty horrid. (eventually did scrap that for DOS. Used kermit to turn it into a actually useful serial terminal that I used for quite some time.)

The next smallest I've gotten Linux to run was using a vanilla 2.6.25 Linux kernel, stipped down and running a hand-built busybox environment running in ramdisk. The system booted off of a single floppy. This was on a old Pentium 200 SBC for a embedded system, 32MB of ram was more then enough. This was for trying to figure out how to deal with some new requirements for the silly thing. Originally ran QNX 4. (eventually did scrap the Linux approach once I figured out to make QNX boot from the floppy, be networkable, and figured out to get Bochs to emulate a environment that QNX was compatible with...) This was a few months ago. I was surprised I could get a single-floppy Linux working. Just used the vanilla kernel sources and vanilla busybox system and configured them for minimal footprint. No patches or anything.

The most recent experience shrinking Linux actually worked out pretty good. Setup Debian 5.0 to be a server in my KVM/virt-manager virtual network on my PC. Used for Windows compatibility and general playground. I decided I wanted to have a minimal server that booted up and ran continiously. Did a standard install of Debian and simply went through disabling services and made a custom list of modules to build into the initrd. With CUPS, Cups-PDF, and Samba services running the thing consumed just 9MB of RAM at boot-up, according to the second line of free -m. Eventually turned udev back on for convience sake, which doubled the ram requirements. :(. But that is not that big of a deal. KVM + Debian on Fedora for the win. Very effective.

I tried NetBSD last year sometime for a thing I was helping out a workmate with. We were trying different things and I tried NetBSD. For a old 386 embedded system. Didn't work out well, unfortunately. I really didn't have time to figure out NetBSD enough to get it to work so we went with a DOS solution using some ancient serial transfer software.. just horrid and unscriptable, but worked.

Fun stuff.

NetBSD 5.0 released

Posted May 2, 2009 13:06 UTC (Sat) by pjdc (subscriber, #6906) [Link]

Did a standard install of Debian and simply went through disabling services [...]

You can actually clear the "[X] Standard system" item in the Debian installer's "Select software to install screen", which will leave you with only the base system.

OpenBSD obviousness

Posted May 1, 2009 20:50 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Sorry for my obtuseness, but why is OpenBSD obvious? Security? There are other equally valid options for secure operating systems, including hardened Linux distributions. The downsides include obsolete versions of things like the Apache web server. I would say that the *BSD advantage (whatever it is) should apply in the same way.

Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds