Slashdot Mirror
Benchmarks For Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD
Ashmash writes "After their Mac OS X versus Ubuntu benchmarks earlier this month, Phoronix.com has now carried out a performance comparison between Ubuntu 8.10, OpenSolaris 2008.11 and FreeBSD 7.1. They used a dual quad-core workstation with the Phoronix Test Suite to run primarily Java, disk, and computational benchmarks. The 64-bit build of Ubuntu 8.10 was the fastest overall, but FreeBSD and OpenSolaris were first in other areas."
Various versions of GCC. While one could argue that the compiler is part of the OS it's indeed replaceable so I would had prefered if they had used the same version of GCC and not different for each OS.
It would had been very interesting to see the Solaris results using Sun Studios CC as well (I think it's also available for Linux nowadays?)
Yes, I, too, find this nut and bolt set inadequate for the purpose of assisting Chinese Rhinoceros to learn Western astrology. It seems silly that purple monkey dishwasher.
I was a bit disappointed by the results, being a FreeBSD fan myself. However, in my quick scan of the article, I didn't see any mention of how they configured the OS. If they truly used the stock 7.1-BETA2 install, that would mean that debugging mode is enabled in the kernel (and maybe the userland, I'm not 100% sure here). Unless I've misunderstood FreeBSD's release methods over the years, they don't disable the debugging until either the RC builds or maybe even the final release tag.
Still, FreeBSD came out on top on 3 of the tests -- not bad for a beta release. I can't wait for 7.1, as using 7.0 on my desktop since its release has been great. I just hope the fully-virtualized IP stack within jails made it into 7.1, as well as a slightly more stable ZFS.
Method of processing duck feet
dammit so /. decided to eat my good post so I'll just leave the quick and dirty instead.
This is why /boot gets its own partition, it lets you remove things very easily, and adding them is simple as well.
The reason that I never really seriously used Linux on my PC laptop was that Ubuntu was sluggish, even with the newest ATI drivers, compared to Windows. Maybe people have good experience with nVidia drivers there, but Windows is a lot more usable as a desktop for me on the performance side of things. Granted, my main computer is a MacBook Pro running Leopard, but I can't imagine putting Linux back on my old PC laptop for when I need to use it.
Except that they tested FreeBSD 7.1 beta 2. FreeBSD betas are compiled with extra debugging and checking code which slows the end result down a lot. This includes the WITNESS kernel flags and the malloc checking. These encourage early and reproducible failure for bugs. For release versions of FreeBSD, these are turned off, which generally gives a noticeable speed increase. I note that the Solaris version they tested was a release candidate too, so I wonder if the same is true there.
A lot of their benchmarks seemed to be CPU-limited, with little OS involvement (e.g. FFT, RSA). Differences here are likely to be more down to malloc() implementation than anything in the kernel. In a FreeBSD beta, malloc will be adding guard pages and initialising data to a known value to check for overflows. In Solaris, I'm not sure what the current malloc() strategy is - last time I used Solaris it was still using a brk()-based malloc() (where FreeBSD and Linux both now tend to use mmap()-based versions).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Uninstalling FreeBSD means deleting the partition. It either uses the boot loader you already had installed, or it installs a multiboot menu that fits in the MBR, so continues to work when the partition has gone away. If you install Ubuntu, I believe it installs grub and points the MBR at stuff on your /boot partition. If you destroy this, you will not be able to boot any OS.
Not that this is a major problem, since uninstalling an OS (outside of a VM) is not something that many people do very often.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Interesting results, and great if you're planning a server, but what about desktop use?
How well does each OS do when doing something like playing back audio/video, and handling background processing loads? What about performance and system response as the load climbs up? (load averages of 5/10/20 ?).
Only because I've seen Linux systems start to crumble around 5 (uniproc machine), and easily get unusuable, but have heard reports of BSD machines being able to still play MP3s without skipping/suttering even around 20 or so...
(And yes, I'll allow tweaking system priorities - it only gets you so far, and impacts the other background processing tasks, to which we'll also be interested in how long they take to run. So renicing the media player to -20 works, but not if it makes all the other tasks take 10x as long to finish...).
If they wanted a good comparison of what a user sees, they should have used a release version of all operating systems, instead of a release of Ubuntu, a release candidate of Solaris and a beta of FreeBSD. I don't know about Solaris release candidates, but FreeBSD betas come with a lot of extra stuff in libc and the kernel turned on that make tracking issues easier at the expense of speed. Most end users will not be running betas, they will be running the latest stable release.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Except that they tested FreeBSD 7.1 beta 2. FreeBSD betas are compiled with extra debugging and checking code which slows the end result down a lot. This includes the WITNESS kernel flags and the malloc checking.
This is only true in HEAD which will eventually be FreeBSD 8.x. They are turned off in the FreeBSD 7.x branch (RELENG_7)
I have not played with Open Solaris but with normal Solaris you need to set parameters in the /etc/system file to get good performance. By default Solaris is set very conservative. In many tests I have run Solaris may not be the fastest with single test but under a heavy load with many applications running my experience has been it can handle a much bigger load then Linux on the same hardware. I use both but for backend heavy loaded servers I would choose Solaris.
It's kind of crazy how so many benchmark reviews completely overlook actual use and go for one or two "bullet list" type qualifiers for their benchmarks. Granted, I understand this is mainly in the interest of page hits and ad revenue, and by making it controversial they increase those things, but c'mon. Benchmarks are supposed to be pragmatic, and in order to be pragmatic, they have to operate at or near userland conditions, considering CPU, bus, memory and network speed, and the like - as they pertain to the user (whether the user is a hosting company or a desktop end user).
It seems like a pretty trivial matter to do something like this. Say, use something like MySQL for starters - it's available for a dozen or so systems (major Linux distros, OS X, Windows, etc.) It's also typically offered by the vendor, so you'd be able to get an 'ideal' setup for each release.
Or, how about something like a "Firefox benchmark" as that's user-applicable and can use all hardware. Time how long it takes to start FF on all systems with, say, 50 tabs running.
Or how about a straight-up media playing benchmark for 2D performance? Launch a dozen or so DivX videos at once and see how well it performs: measure CPU load, memory use, and the time it takes for FF to start up completely.
Or how about lengthy disk access (maybe crawling a storage tree or such) and measure the time it takes, as well as the amount of memory which gets cached for the process?
This benchmark, as well as most others, seem pretty trivial and useless, and not all that well thought out. They're certainly not scientific!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
All three come with tunable performance parameters. All three can have their performance boosted even further by recompiling everything optimized for the particular hardware being used, possibly using specialized compilers (e.g. from Sun or Intel). But that's not the point, IMO. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a pissing match--this should be an opportunity to improve all three systems by seeing where their strengths and weaknesses are, and working to bolster their weaknesses and improve their strengths.
In my experience, these sorts of tests on free/libre/open-source systems quickly become out-of-date because the developers take them as a challenge, and that's a good thing for everyone! :)
Ff your tests were more than a couple of years ago, they're probably so out-of-date as to be utterly meaningless, but that's a separate issue. Personally, I'm a big fan of all three systems and want to see all three thrive and grow and improve. This kind of testing can only help with that, once you get past all the dick-waving by narrow-minded advocates.
Linux is a microkernel? Mach is monolithic? Since when?
Should read, "Linux with its non-microkernel heritage"
The point was that Linux has no traditional microkernel alignment in contrast with OS X that keeps the traditions of a microkernel that when paired with a monolithic BSD interface kills a lot of the concept of what the MACH kernel was intended to do.
Originally MACH was a microkernel concept, but in its current incarnations, like OpenBSD, OS X, etc, it is no longer a microkernel by any set of definitions other than being another abstraction layer for the upper level kernel API sets.
MACH when paired with BSD, a monolithic kernel API you lose a lot of the direct hardware one request concept of a microkernel, especially on today's architectures.
Linux was true to itself in that it never attempted to abstract hardware and instead set its own rules for what was expected of the hardware, and when running on hardware that cannot meet the needs, the functionality that Linux requires must be simulated on that hardware.
So you have Linux that will outperform OS X because of its all in one nature that doesn't have to cross call API layers for kernel processes. On the other hand you have a BSD/MACH concepts like OS X that can do well for hard crunching simple tasks that funnel all the way to the MACH kernel, but when it gets to handling multiple requests, process communication gets sticky and multi-tasking can kill the once low level elegant level of performance offered.
NT has neither of these pitfalls. It has a very fast process creation system, a low level HAL, and multi-layered kernel API sets. Not only do you get the near speed of a microkernel, but you also get the robust API sets that STILL reside in true kernel layers.
On Windows this is taken to such an extreme that even Win32, which is an OS subsystem running on NT, has its own kernel32, that is technically a 'kernel' level API, yet sits all the way up in an agnostic subsystem.
There is a reason the kernel designer of MACH let it go and moved on to Microsoft and has put their knowledge and work behind NT, because they believe in the architecture, even over their own creation.
As for NT being a copy or rip off of VMS, there is some truth that the knowledge from the VMS team didn't forget what they learned when they went to Micrsoft, but also remember, they were wanting to replace VMS when at DEC even and much of their concepts where thrown by corporate politics, preventing any massive innovation to the platform that they seriously wanted to explore. This is what moved so many to go to MS so they could make the next generation OS.
NT wasn't just a overnight bastard creation, it was the best and brightest from MS and VMS and even the UNIX developers of the time...
Cutler is brilliant, but in today's kernel world, even he admits he is getting dated. (Even Windows 7 moved in a few new people to optimize in different directions reworking old standard Cutler level code in the kernel.)
So if we can say, what Culter's team did in the 1990s was more revolutionary than evolutionary, as NT really doesn't conform to VMS concepts, especially theoretical kernel concepts, then why can't we ask the OSS world today to revisit kernel architecture on a larger scale?
Instead I see articles flying around about BSD vs Linux and Linus writing about why monolithic kernel designs will alwasy be better and other experts debating that moving back to an more inclusive microkernel with modern hardware in mind would be better.
Where are the movers in the OSS word that are outside this box and why isn't the actively working on even a basic hybrid kernel technology of its own that with what kernel engineers know today will leapfrog kernel design?
Instead the big work you see on actual new kernel concepts are yet again coming from places like Microsoft Research where they are playing with singularity and other kernel concepts that range from managed code kernel designs to even frankenstei