I know it’s a simple program, but a few months ago I wrote a little python script to find prime numbers. The little python script was able to find all the prime numbers up to 10,000,000 in 2:40 minutes. I wonder if rust can beat that?

Following up on my previous posting about the programming language rust, I figured I may as well release the code I have written so far. It’s really been a fun journey, and I don’t claim at all to be a rust expert by any means, but here you go.

Recently, I started using a new language on the block: go. However, I found myself quickly reading about other new languages that have showed up recently within the last few years.

One such language was rust.

In some of my previous posts, I spent some time attempting to squeeze out the best NFS performance as possible from OpenBSD. This time, I wanted to run a similar test, but on Linux and see if the same findings were applicable.

I found the results rather interesting, as they show that Linux is capable of faster transfer speeds than OpenBSD, with much less work. Of course, this doesn’t make me dislike OpenBSD any less (obviously), as the OS is still capable of fast transfers, and I am not building any supercomputers at my home.

My original nfstest script on OpenBSD was tweaked for use on Linux recently. While modifying the script, I realized that there were some shortcomings to my original script.

Rsync was the original transfer method; however, after some testing and research, I realized that this method may have a little more overhead than originally realized.

At the behest of a fellow admin, who apparently digests solely rss feeds, and not content directly, my project this weekend became one to enable rss feeds within hugo.

Due to the relative simplicity of hugo, I figured that this task should be rather easy. Luckily, it was so.

Part two NFS performance tuning. I have some new data to publish. I reran the full NFS test, this time with the script transferring three files, with one sync and unmount in between the three transfers. I saw more interesting behavior that is worth noting, as well as publishing the script used to compile these logs.

Recently I’ve starting using my FreeBSD server as an active NFS server again, instead of just a giant file storage system for old pictures and docs. I prefer to keep as much data on a central storage system, that way, individual client machines can be rebuilt at a moments notice with no data loss.

Until a few months ago, my home desktop was running CentOS. Now it is a OpenBSD desktop running CWM, and I have noticed that the NFS client performance didn’t seem that great compared to the old Linux desktop. So, I figured it was time for some performance testing.

Since it has been a couple weeks since first starting to work with wireguard on OpenBSD, I figured it was about time to figure out how to get my OpenBSD desktop to act as a wireguard client. Who knows, perhaps this will one day allow me to drop my PIA VPN and shift exclusively to running my own personal VPN’s.

Well, I am no networking pro. I know there is a wg-quick script out there, but the couple of times that I tried it out on OpenBSD, it failed. I figured that there shouldn’t be that much to a wireguard tunnel, all I have to do is figure out how to establish the tunnel and force data out the tun device.

I’ve been running a OpenBSD server as my home router for a number of years now, moving between various configuration, scripts, and hardware. I’ve been running on the FW1 for a year now. I originally built the router as an escape from both ISP-provided router/modem combos, as well as custom firmware such as dd-wrt; I wanted more control.

Ever since I was a teenager, I always enjoyed the command line interface. It let me instruct EXACTLY what I wanted the OS to do, and have more control than any GUI out there. However, one area on my router that has always annoyed me was UPnP. This was, as far as I knew, a necessary evil. Without UPnP, online games had a difficult time with multiplayer.