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.

Comments

Well

[morgan_greywolf]

I'd be interested to see results from pre-CFS kernels.

Not that FreeBSD hasn't made major performance improvements.

Also, I think that a database test isn't a complete picture. For example, some OSes like IRIX or Mac OS X perform very well on streaming of local video and audio, but I wouldn't benchmark Oracle or PostgreSQL on either.

Re:Well

[archen]

And I like the article summary stating that FreeBSD may now be considered "a serious performance contender". Like FreeBSD was 1000% slower than Linux? Most servers spend their time spinning their wheels anyway, generally I'd rather look at security, how it handles under load and other metrics than whatever "performance" is considered in this instance. Linux is good for some things, BSD for others.

About the only really good news here is that MySQL performance is actually adequate. As MySQL has always been a dog (usable, but a dog) on FreeBSD, the general rule of thumb was that if you needed MySQL you should stick to Linux; all other factors being equal. So now at least we can get down to other factors that are important instead of one database that performs poorly on one system.

In short, wow

[MrNemesis]

Very, very nice scaling performance under PGSQL is evident in the PDF, and I've no reason to assume the benches aren't legit. I think part fo the reason that PG was traditionally slower than MySQL was that it did lots of complicated locking to provide better scalability across processors, whereas we see MySQL performance dropping off after we go to more than eight cores. I think this was the same philosophy Sun took with "Slowaris", which was also far more scalabe than Linux at the time the moniker was in widespread use.

Still, I hope Linux can at least match this sort of superb scalability. CFS is fairly new, and I know there's optimisation work been done to it in .24 and .25, although it was a little sad to see the first iteration of CFS performing more poorly than its predecessor (and, if this is the case, I can see why Linus stonewalled CK's patches for so long, since they were mainly tested on desktop workloads). Are there any apples-to-apples comparisons out there that test various flavours and versions of Linux and BSD with a wide range of benchmarks? At the best review sites do a few benches with MySQL, and six months later everything has changed so it's incredibly difficult to do good performance comparisons.

Even so, it's refreshing to see precious little of the "BSD fudged their benchmarks!" trollspeak in the LKML thread, and plenty of talk about how to make Linux better. Open source is hippy capitalism - it also needs healthy competition to keep it in check :)

Offtopic: bug linked to in the LKML pointed me at this http://www.latencytop.org/ Sounds quite nifty

Seriously: who cares?

[mcrbids]

Yes, I meant that: who cares?

Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!

My rule of thumb for upgrading equipment has been to not bother until we hit a full order of magnitude improvement. In other words, if 1) we can 10X the performance of a system AND 2) there have been complaints about performance, then the upgrade is probably worth it. Even then, the value is dubious. For example, in Postgres, (or any other database application) it's very typical to see 100x improvement simply by creating an index!

Maybe this is good for frail BSD egos, who have been long bruised by the mindshare success of Linux over the more historic and "more free" BSD. So be it. But it's not performance that's kept me from using BSD, it's familiarity and the pain of switching. And that's also what kept me running it yesterday, will today, and tomorrow too.

Don't get me wrong - I would hate to see BSD "die" in any meaningful way. The different cultures between Linux and BSD create a very rich, diverse environment where ideas can be tested, and the cross-feed of proven concepts and technologies (EG: Open SSH) benefits all involved!

But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!

Re:Seriously: who cares?

[Pharmboy]

But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!

So if you are google, and your software will all 100% run with Linux or BSD, you don't see the idea that 15% better performance means the same work with 15% less machines means something? In certain cases, 15% can mean thousands or millions of dollars, all for changing to an operating system that will basically run on the exact same hardware and run the exact same software, after a recompile.

No for most it isn't a big deal and may not make people CHANGE operating systems on existing hardware. We use both Linux and BSD, so it *might* make me consider BSD instead of Linux on the next new box. I'm likely not alone in this.