Hacker News

The article is about allowing bandwidth restrictions in bytes/second that are larger than 2³²-1, not about how fast pf can filter packets.

I guess few people with faster ports felt the need to limit bandwidth for a service to something that’s that large.

FTA:

“OpenBSD's PF packet filter has long supported HFSC traffic shaping with the queue rules in pf.conf(5). However, an internal 32-bit limitation in the HFSC service curve structure (struct hfsc_sc) meant that bandwidth values were silently capped at approximately 4.29 Gbps, ” the maximum value of a u_int ".

With 10G, 25G, and 100G network interfaces now commonplace, OpenBSD devs making huge progress unlocking the kernel for SMP, and adding drivers for cards supporting some of these speeds, this limitation started to get in the way. Configuring bandwidth 10G on a queue would silently wrap around, producing incorrect and unpredictable scheduling behaviour.

A new patch widens the bandwidth fields in the kernel's HFSC scheduler from 32-bit to 64-bit integers, removing this bottleneck entirely.”

> Does this mean that basically nobody is currently using OpenBSD in the datacentre or anywhere

Half the problem is lack of proper drivers. I love OpenBSD but all the fibre stuff is just a bit half-baked.

For a long time OpenBSD didn't even have DOM (light-level monitoring etc.) exposed in its 1g fibre drivers. Stuff like that automatically kills off OpenBSD as a choice for datacentres where DOM stats are a non-negotiable hard requirement as they are so critical to troubleshooting.

OpenBSD finally introduced DOM stats for SFP somewhere around 2020–2021, but it doesn't always work, it depends if you have the right magic combination of SFP and card manufacturer. Whilst on FreeBSD it Just Works (TM).

And then overall, for higher speed optics, FreeBSD simply remains lightyears ahead (forgive the pun !). For example, Decisio make nice little router boxes with 10g SFP+ on them, FreeBSD has the drivers out-of-the-box, OpenBSD doesn't. And that's only an SFP+ example, its basically rolling-tumbleweed in a desert territory if you start venturing up to QSFP etc. ...

PF itself is not tailored towards ISPs and/or big orgs. IPFW (FreeBSD) is more powerful and flexible.

OpenBSD shines as a secure all-in-one router SOHO solution. And it’s great because you get all the software you need in the base system. PF is intuitive and easy to work with, even for non network gurus.

OpenBSD was a great OS back in the late 90s and even early 2000s. In some cases it was competing neck to neck with Linux. Since then, well, Linux grew a lot and OpenBSD not so much. There are multiple causes for this, I will go only through a few: Linux has more support from the big companies; the huge difference in userbase numbers; Linux is more welcoming to new users. And the difference is only growing.

A lot of the time once you get into multi-gig+ territory the answer isn't "make the kernel faster," it's "stop doing it in the kernel."

You end up pushing the hot path out to userland where you can actually scale across cores (DPDK/netmap/XDP style approaches), batch packets, and then DMA straight to and from the NIC. The kernel becomes more of a control plane than the data plane.

PF/ALTQ is very much in the traditional in-kernel, per-packet model, so it hits those limits sooner.

Isnt OpenBSD mainly used for security testing or do I have it wrong? Would be surprised if it was used in production datacenter networking hardware at all. Seems like most people would use one of the proprietary implementations (which likely would include specific written drivers for that hardware) or something like FreeBSD

> 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?

This looks like it only affects bandwidth limiting. I suspect it's pretty niche to use OpenBSD as a traffic shaper at 10G+, and if you did, I'd imagine most of the queue limits would tend toward significantly less than 4G.

One thing could also be that by the time you have 10GE uplinks, shaping is not as important.

When we had 512kbit links, prioritizing VOIP would be a thing, and for asymmetric links like 128/512kbit it was prudent to prioritize small packets (ssh) and tcp ACKs on the outgoing link or the downloads would suffer, but when you have 5-10-25GE, not being able to stick an ACK packet in the queue is perhaps not the main issue.

AFAIK performance is not a priority for OpenBSD project - security is (and other related qualities like code which is easy to understand and maintain). FreeBSD (at least when I followed it several years ago) had better performance both for ipfw and its own PF fork (not fully compatible with OpenBSD one).

I finally talked myself into going to 3Gbps (and working on internal network to 10). Internal transfer to NAS will be much faster, and downloading AI models should go from ~8 minutes to less than 3 minutes. Is it necessary? Not exactly. But super nice

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

Especially given that IEEE 802.3dj is working on 1.6T / 1600G, and is expected to publish the final spec in Summer/Autumn 2026:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabit_Ethernet

Currently these interfaces are only on switches, but there are already NICs at 800G (P1800GO, Thor Ultra, ConnectX-8/9), so if you LACP/LAGG two together your bond is at 1600G.

Yes, we're already running 800G networks, so this phrasing seems really silly to me.

Honestly, I'm really curious about this number. 10bits is 1024, so why 999G specifically?