In the days when even cheap consumer hardware ships with 2.5G ports, this number seems weirdly low. Does this mean that basically nobody is currently using OpenBSD in the datacentre or anywhere that might be expecting to handle 10G or higher per port, or is it just filtering that's an issue?

I'm not surprised that the issue exists as even 10 years ago these speeds were uncommon outside of the datacentre, I'm just surprised that nobody has felt a pressing enough need to fix this earlier in the previous few years.

My local fiber finally offers 4 Gbps connection but I’m not even sure what to use it for lol. I have 2 Gbps and that's more than enough already.

It’s interesting how much of networking behavior still assumes a relatively stable path.

In practice, especially on mobile networks, path instability is the norm rather than the exception.

Feels like a lot of system design still treats failure as exceptional, while it might make more sense to treat it as a normal runtime condition.

Can pf actually shape at speeds above 4 gbps?

I would love to use openbsd. I really wanna give it a try but the filesystem choices seem kinda meh. Are there any modern filesystems with good nvme and FDE support for openbsd.

It’s still single threaded. PF in FreeBSD is multithreaded. For home wan’s I’d be using openBSD. For anything else FreeBSD.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

"Values up to 999G are supported, more than enough for interfaces today and the future." - Article

"When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." - Bill Gates

dsa