Static Web Hosting on the Intel N150: FreeBSD, SmartOS, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux Compared

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@madduci Debian 12 is the last officially supported release inside a LX zone. But I've used Debian 13.2 when installing on bare metal.

[dorubab@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano sadly the cryptographic functions from the illumos kernel might be a bit underperforming.

See https://www.illumos.org/issues/4896.

Unsure if they do impact TLS, but they do impact zfs native encryption performance for sure.

One of those things that are totally okay for self hosting in many cases, but that might be quite a pain for a production environment

[kinderstampfer@mstdn.social]

@stefano The performance of FreeBSD is quite interesting here.

Might this be due to all the optimization work for throughput and resource utilization that happened in the recent years? (at least partly driven by $large_streaming_provider as far as i'm aware)

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@kinderstampfer It probably is. But it's always been extremely efficient, even 20 years ago. I think it's just the result of good engineering that, time after time, continues to be a good base for all the new technologies/improvements

[kinderstampfer@mstdn.social]

@stefano Very true that good engineering pays off :-)

And now that you say it, i kinda remember FreeBSD being the thing that was recommended back then if you wanted all the performance possible.

[jae@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano great writeup as always. those n150 machines are a great alternative to pi/arm. have two in the lab running freebsd for dns and other adventures. such a capable little machine.

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@kinderstampfer exactly. Back in 2002, FreeBSD was the OS that was giving the best {networking,cpu,ram} performance. Sure, Linux has improved - and I'm glad it did! - but the solid foundations of FreeBSD are still tangible today

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@jae Thanks. I'm using one of them as workstation at office. It's perfect: no noise, low power consumption, good performance

[jae@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano good usecase for general purpose. for what i do i need more ram for my works. i did setup mastodon+caddy in jails on one and it didn't really tax it at all.

you may see it in your client work, but i all too often see clients pouring cash on the fastest/latest to future proof. most of the time their existing systems barely hit 30% capacity. they want headroom so i show them optics over time and shift their money to more meaningful initiatives. ive found it helps with credibility and to maintain the relationship. people remember good solutions and cost stewardship

[afb@mastodonapp.uk]

@stefano This was a really interesting read.

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@afb thank you!

[cienmilojos@infosec.exchange]

@stefano great write up. Hit all major points fairly. It's good to see FreeBSD and Debian still kicking ass.

[tomaoki@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano
Interesting writing as usual, and interesting result!
Maybe supporting aesni or not, or how offloading to NIC matters here on TLS tests?

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@cienmilojos thank you!

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@TomAoki Yes, probably. I haven't investigated deeply, but seeing the http result, I think it's related to the aes-ni.

[pertho@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano Are there any sysctl knobs/dials you'd recommend for optimising a web stack on FreeBSD?

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@pertho it mostly depends on the workload. kTLS can really boost your performance, but there've been some problems with it, in the past (I think it's ok now). And tuning other stuff requires to fully understand the typical workload (Many small files? Big files, many connections? etc.)
So I can't recommend a "one size fits all" for a web stack. The default values are already reasonable for normal workloads as FreeBSD is already extremely efficient.

[pertho@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@stefano but... We need... Moaaar. ..... Powerrrr! 😂

[stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@pertho 😆