Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 7.0 Bests Linux In SMP Performance
cecom writes "After major improvements in SMP support in FreeBSD 7.0, benchmarks show it performing 15% better than the latest Linux kernels (PDF, see slides 17 to 19) on 8 CPUs under PostgreSQL and MySQL. While a couple of benchmarks are not conclusive evidence, it can be assumed that FreeBSD will once again be a serious performance contender. Some posters on LWN have noted that the level of Linux performance could be related to the Completely Fair Scheduler, which was merged into the 2.6.23 Linux kernel."
Update: 03/06 21:32 GMT by KD : An anonymous reader sent in word that Linux kernel developer Nick Piggin reran the benchmark today and came to a different conclusion: In his benchmark Linux was faster than FreeBSD.
It probably has a lot to do with FreeBSD having a much more focused niche. FreeBSD is really tuned primarily for servers. You can use it on your desktop, but that's not really it's main purpose. Linux on the other hand, has really branched out. It has desktop distros, server distros, embedded distros, and probably a couple other areas I haven't thought of.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Since they switched to the Completely Fair Scheduler to improve performance then it means one or two things. Either they have failed, as it seems to run slower than earlier Linux versions in the BSD test, or the tests that BSD chose are "untypical", maybe selected to show a particular advantage to BSD. I don't have the expertise to tell which, but I would be happier seeing some benchmarks from an independent source rather than BSD.
How many of those packages are desktop packages? Seems like a odd metric to just compare the number of packages as to how well an OS is suited to the desktop.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm a FreeBSD fan, but what kind of logic is that? You pick one example out of a fragmented set, and compare it to an entire other set of operating systems.
You act as if NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, Darwin, etc, do not exist. Of course and item cannot be fragmented if if you define it's containing set as "itself". Makes about as much sense as:
Ubuntu is not fragmented like the 100 and 1 BSD distrosIt does (I use it too) BUT only in specific environments. FreeBSD hardware support is not bad, but it is nowhere near as complete as that found in the various Linux distro's. My wireless keyboard + mouse is supported under any recent Linux distro, on FreeBSD, only the keyboard works (fixable with a unofficial ums.ko though). No support under FreeBSD for my DVB-C PCI card either.
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
You also wouldn't run Oracle or PostgreSQL on them unless you wanted to lose your job. The test is a great test for linux vs. freebds, because it's the type of environment where they'd compete.
Of those you listed, Only DragonflyBSD and Darwin use a FreeBSD kernel, Darwin considerably modified, to the point that it might as well be counted on its own. You can not drop the FreeBSD kernel in any of them and have things work, except for Dragonfly, but even then it still requires (minor) modification.
Compare/Contrast to Linux distributions. The kernel, assuming version matchs, is rather interchangable between the distros. Its the file system layout, the utilities included, and default configurations that define the 'distro'.
With FreeBSD, all of the above is defined as 'FreeBSD'. DragonflyBSD is a fork it. As is PC-BSD and a couple of the even less known forks.
Linux distros are 'the GNU/Linux kernel' and 'the utilities and userland tools required to make it usable'.
Saying there are FreeBSD distros is like saying there are 'Slackware' distros, or some such variation. While I'm sure you could argue it, the meaning behind what we all consider it to be would be different than what people think of when its said.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Did you file a bug report and contact that port's maintainer?
Compare 15% against Moore's law, and you find that it equates to a few weeks delay in the price-performance curve.
If it takes more than a few weeks to make the switch, you've already lost your benefit, as well as the potential of destabilizing your administration of those systems. Backups have be revisited, since the file tree will have changed. Network monitors will have to be updated, and tested for compatibility changes. Little one-off scripts to solve problem X or Y in a hurry will break. Admins will have to be trained, and will make more mistakes for a while until they find out what not to do. Unforeseen wrinkles will inevitably appear, Etc... Etc... Etc...
Worth it for Google? Not a chance!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Eivind (ex/inactive FreeBSD kernel developer).
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
What metric? Desktop drivers.
Gnuyen
That isn't the important point though; the important point raised is that CFS might be less good than promised and that there's the accusation that Linus picked CFS over other projects because Ingo is in the in-crowd. I don't follow lkml, so I wouldn't know whether this is true.