FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has brought benchmarks comparing the FreeBSD 8.0-RC and Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 6 operating systems. FreeBSD rather ends up taking a wallop to Ubuntu Linux, but there are a few areas where FreeBSD 8 ran well. They also posted benchmarks comparing this near-final FreeBSD 8.0 build to that of FreeBSD 7.2 to show performance improvements there but with a few regressions."

Comments

Re:Benchmarks...

[nxtw]

Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.

Ubuntu has LTS (long-term support) releases which are supported for 5 years on the server side. The last was 8.04 and the next will be 10.04.

I prefer RHEL/CentOS, however. I wonder how many people use Ubuntu LTS instead of using RHEL or SLES instead.

Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.

How often is this important? I can think only of a few situations, such as when fitting a system into a small/cheap flash.

But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.

Ubuntu has a separate 'server' version (which really just includes a different set of packages and a different kernel build.)

FreeBSD is still in debugging mode

[Just Some Guy]

From the update notes in /usr/src/UPDATING:

NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 8.x IS SLOW:
FreeBSD 8.x has many debugging features turned on, in both the kernel and userland. These features attempt to detect incorrect use of system primitives, and encourage loud failure through extra sanity checking and fail stop semantics. They also substantially impact system performance. If you want to do performance measurement, benchmarking, and optimization, you'll want to turn them off. This includes various WITNESS- related kernel options, INVARIANTS, malloc debugging flags in userland, and various verbose features in the kernel. Many developers choose to disable these features on build machines to maximize performance. (To disable malloc debugging, run ln -s aj /etc/malloc.conf.)

Since the article didn't mention anything about disabling all the debugging options, I'll consider this an invalid benchmark until shown otherwise.

Phoronix? Moronix more like.

[LizardKing]

Yet again a benchmark against a pre-release version of FreeBSD where the testers didn't even bother reading the documentation. Anyone actually familiar with the FreeBSD development and release process would know that a release candidate has a considerable amount of debugging options turned on. This is to help diagnose any problems as the last issues are shaken out of a release, but has an adverse impact on performance.

Re:What's the point.

[geminidomino]

Is there any actual benefit to be gained from removing "cruft", other than saving a smidgen of memory?

Long, but not long enough answer:

Performance: Unless the cruft is a bunch of data or NOPs, it will be executed at some point, which is pointless (or it wouldn't be cruft.) And whether it's data or instruction, if "good" data is swapped out of the cache in favor of the cruft, then it will have to be read back in (cache misses).

Security: Bugs love to hide in cruft.

tl;dr version: Yes.