Posted by
CowboyNeal
on from the forget-titanic dept.
chris sent in a link
to this story which
reports on FreeBSD being used on 32 dual-processor machines to render special effects for The Matrix.
With 32 dual-processor machines, I doubt there's much that they couldn't render.
Here are 2 postings on comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc and comp.os.linux.advocacy by Matt Dillon (I believe he's a FreeBSD kernel hacker). I think it's a pretty good comparison. Sorry Matt I didn't ask you for permission to post it.
===First post======================================== :In article , :Navindra Umanee wrote: :> :>I never realised that it was possible to sysadmin Linux fully from a :>GUI these days, what do they use? Linuxconf or something? Most (if :>not all) sysadmins I know who do Linux don't use a GUI. Besides, :>aren't these GUIs supposed to be a frontend that simply modifies the :>underlying text files? :> :>-N.
You can't, really. You can configure the major pieces... enough for a typical user to configure his linux box. But for any serious work you have to get under the hood just like with other UNIXs.
The configuration files needed by Linux are very similar to the configuration files needed by FreeBSD and other UNIXes. Surprise Surprise! Maybe it's because both platforms use virtually the same servers. inetd, popper, imap, sendmail, fingerd, bind, talk. Ifconfig, route, pppd, samba, XFree86. Etc etc etc.
Most of the differences at this level are superficial. Linux puts config files in different places. The startup script works somewhat differently ( though not as different as some people seem to believe ).
The biggest differences are under the hood -- the kernel core itself. While the syscall set is similar between the two OSs, the kernel cores are very different from each other. I think this is one of the greatest strengths of the open-source movement. Protocol interoperability gets very well-tested in mixed environments, and this has resulted in many bugs being found and fixed on both platforms ( and vs Solaris, too, when it comes to NFS V3 interoperability ).
Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for buffer cache ageing for a damn good reason, and multiply-linked structures as well - getting an O(1) result to any operation is as important as choosing the right page to push out. Because every wrong decision made has a terrible price to pay in performance. Making the right decision (e.g. what to page, how to order I/O, when to start async I/O, how much to do, how to balance memory between RSS, discrete I/O, and VM, when to eat a page fault in order to get better useage stats on the page, etc) is worth a modicum of extra complexity.
-Matt
-- Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet Communications (Please include original email in any response)
=======Second Post================================== :In article , :Navindra Umanee wrote: :>Matt Dillon wrote: :>> Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more :>> attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that :>> simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity :>> to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for :> :>Ahh, but has anyone proved this detriment of performance by actual :>testing and comparisons? Nice article, btw. :> :>-N.
Yes. There are a number of well known facts about both FreeBSD and Linux. It's not a matter of 'proving' anything -- these are things that the developers tend to agree on ( verse the 'rabble' who like to argue over everything ).
Lets see if I can drag up a few.
* Linux syscall overhead is lower then FreeBSD's. e.g. 1uS vs 2uS, roughly.
* FreeBSD VM management tends to perform considerably better when memory is stressed. Mainly oweing to better selection of pages to page-in and page-out. ( FreeBSD's reputation for running well under load is not exaggerated ).
Under 0-stress situations, Linux's simpler algorithms provide a small benefit.
(i.e. FreeBSD does more work figuring out what to page out or clean, but it gets it all back by choosing the 'right' pages whereas Linux does less work figuring out what to page out or clean, but loses the advantage by choosing the 'wrong' pages).
* FreeBSD scales I/O load better, mainly oweing to clustering and dynamic readahead. Linux does a little read-ahead, but it isn't smart about it. For example, it does not attempt to avoid extra seeks on read-ahead blocks. FreeBSD goes overboard trying to avoid extra seeks ( a little too overboard in some cases:-) ).
* Linux VM management currently depends on mapping physical memory into KVM, which limits the amount of physical memory that can be accomodated on 32 bit machines to approximately 2G. FreeBSD will operate on 32 bit (Intel) boxes containing up to 4G of memory.
* A number of core Linux VM routines depend on scanning page tables, which is very inefficient due to two things: First, shared pages are scanned more then once and, second, scanning for page classifications ( such as 'clean' or 'dirty' ) across the entire set rather then keeping track of page classifications via separate lists or queues. This is probably the single-biggest problem the Linux VM system has.
This rears its ugly head when running programs that fork a lot, such as web and news servers, sendmail, popper, and so on.
FreeBSD uses VM algorithms that are, roughly, independant of its page tables and which tend to be O(1).
* Linux has been ported to a number of platforms. FreeBSD currently only runs on Intel and Alpha, and the Alpha port still needs a lot of work.
-Matt
-- Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet Communications (Please include original email in any response)
*BSD in trouble?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3
Here's a question for the some posters out there.
Occasionally I see someone post that *BSD is "in trouble" and will disappear sometime in the near future as other OSes take "market share."
Why do people make such claims? Is there any really strong evidence to support this? Please explain why *BSD is "in trouble."
Keep in mind that having little market share doesn't mean it will die. Imagine linux in.01 days, before all the commercial support. It still survived. And OpenBSD and NetBSD seem to be still alive, although they seem to be less popular than FreeBSD. Also, FreeBSD does have commercial users, and a more flexible license for businesses. Aside from the often quoted examples of Yahoo! and Walnut Creek, there is a list of some others at the FreeBSD Gallery . And of course, this is not a complete list.
Please, just use the OS you like for the job you want to do, and don't pray for the death of excellent operating systems (OSes from unscrupulous companies like M$, bash all you want).
Is that the evolution of rendering algorithms, of computer systems, or the fact that the Matrix required less computational power than Titanic? After all, weren't 100+ Alphas used for Titanic?
Suddenly I Understand....
by
BadlandZ
·
· Score: 3
"was truly an amazing effort on everyone's part, and I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution."
*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....
This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)
Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess:-)
If i'm nost mistaken the rendering software used was linux based and thus emulated on the freebsd machine. Doing so was just cause the main person in charge was a hardcore freebsd guy and didnt really like going linux. They did sacrifice a lot of preformance due to that (refering to an older/. article on this subject). Also, that article went on to state that if they had freebsd based tools it would have done a better job.
Now, the fact that freebsd was used was just cause the guy in charge has a hardon for it, nothing more nothing less. It would have been different if Rob was in charge of that project. (I believe he'd use Mac OS;) ) --
-- ...free your source and the rest would follow...
The FreeBSD operating system is a powerful, completely open-source system based on the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX. It is available free of charge from numerous Internet websites and also on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek CDROM, and includes thousands of ported applications including 3-D graphics rendering and many other equally powerful tools. FreeBSD is optimized for use on the Intel x86 processor line that is the heart of today's versatile commodity personal computers. Infinitely customizable, FreeBSD is at the heart of such Internet powerhouse applications as Yahoo! and U.S. West because is unencumbered by commercial license restrictions and can be copied and modified freely.
Is it my imagination, or does this 'article' seem to be more akin to advertising?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.:P)
If i'm nost mistaken the rendering software used was linux based and thus emulated on the freebsd machine.
Correct. Renderman.
Doing so was just cause the main person in charge was a hardcore freebsd guy and didnt really like going linux.
Charles Henrich uses FreeBSD in preference to Linux. He's contributed code/docs to the project, but he doesn't have commit access. This is a somewhat strange definition of "hardcore freebsd guy" you seem to be using.
They did sacrifice a lot of preformance due to that (refering to an older/. article on this subject). Also, that article went on to state that if they had freebsd based tools it would have done a better job.
False. A cite/URL for this/. article would be appreciated so I can respond to its FUD. If you don't have one, please don't bother repeating these allegations, because they're false.
And to others who've pointed it out; the description on this/. post is deceptive -- it's not a story about the Matrix, it's a Press Release (the words "Press Release" in the title of the web page and in the heading should have been a tip off to the more alert amongst you). This is why it's light on technical details. A more detailed story will hopefully be forthcoming for DaemonNews.
What the hell has happenned to slashdot, this used to be an INFORMED forum. These days is nothing more than a bunch of kiddies arguing how linux is superior over something they HAVE NEVER USED.
DISCLAMER
( sorry if this offends the people that do not fit in the description above, i know there's a great deal of very smart and knowledgeable people still left here in slashdot and i hope that number grows because we need you)
On the comparison of "LINUX" Vs " FreeBSD" you are all pretty wrong, FreeBSD is both a Distribution AND a kernel, not one like linux. if you want to compare distributions then go ahead, compare Redhat 5.2 versus fBSD 3.1-RELEASE.
The fact of the matter is that Linux distributions are for the most part ( with the exception of Debian all the way ) still bleeding edge and not the most stable systems without a GREAT deal of tweaking. As you can see from FBSD, this is way different as there are three current distributions aimed at different purposes. ( -RELEASE , -CURRENT, and --STABLE )
Say all you may, but my experience with both a customized redhat with the 2.2.x kernell versus a 3.1 -RELEASE has shown me that FreeBSD still handles networking load quite better than a normall linux distribution. How can i tell this... well, from about 25 hsoting servers that i administer. a great deal of them started as Linux boxes but, we only needed to test one freeBSD machine with the load of TWO linux boxes and we were converts.
as for the linux emulation in freeBSD.... first, is not "emulation " persay, is much more closer to what wine does, which is binary compability. To this day linux threads still perform better in FreeBSD. Of course some things are a bit slower, but , hey, this are things that were not originally aimed at freeBSD, is a god damn good show at the prowness of FreeBSD programmers.
I love linux, i use it a smy personal workstation at both home and work, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of squeezing that last drop of performance out of a x86 machine, fBSD does it much better than linux. Not only is the kernel more mature, but, even linux zealou shave to agree with this, linux distributions to date just plain suck ( for lack of a better word). I mean, when was the last time you used a system as clean as the ports collection... when was the last time you TOTTALY rebuilt all the programs in your system quite flawlessly with one command.
Linux has a lot of promise, but , FreeBSD still handles load better, because it is a kernel totally tuned for the x86 arch.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are 2 postings on comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc and comp.os.linux.advocacy by Matt Dillon (I believe he's a FreeBSD kernel hacker). I think it's a pretty good comparison. Sorry Matt I didn't ask you for permission to post it.
... enough
:-) ).
===First post========================================
:In article ,
:Navindra Umanee wrote:
:>
:>I never realised that it was possible to sysadmin Linux fully from a
:>GUI these days, what do they use? Linuxconf or something? Most (if
:>not all) sysadmins I know who do Linux don't use a GUI. Besides,
:>aren't these GUIs supposed to be a frontend that simply modifies the
:>underlying text files?
:>
:>-N.
You can't, really. You can configure the major pieces
for a typical user to configure his linux box. But for any serious
work you have to get under the hood just like with other UNIXs.
The configuration files needed by Linux are very similar to the
configuration files needed by FreeBSD and other UNIXes. Surprise
Surprise! Maybe it's because both platforms use virtually the same
servers. inetd, popper, imap, sendmail, fingerd, bind, talk.
Ifconfig, route, pppd, samba, XFree86. Etc etc etc.
Most of the differences at this level are superficial. Linux puts
config files in different places. The startup script works
somewhat differently ( though not as different as some people seem
to believe ).
The biggest differences are under the hood -- the kernel core itself.
While the syscall set is similar between the two OSs, the kernel cores
are very different from each other. I think this is one of the greatest
strengths of the open-source movement. Protocol interoperability gets
very well-tested in mixed environments, and this has resulted in many
bugs being found and fixed on both platforms ( and vs Solaris, too, when
it comes to NFS V3 interoperability ).
Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more
attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that
simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity
to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for
buffer cache ageing for a damn good reason, and multiply-linked structures
as well - getting an O(1) result to any operation is as important as
choosing the right page to push out. Because every wrong decision made
has a terrible price to pay in performance. Making the right decision
(e.g. what to page, how to order I/O, when to start async I/O, how much
to do, how to balance memory between RSS, discrete I/O, and VM, when to
eat a page fault in order to get better useage stats on the page, etc)
is worth a modicum of extra complexity.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet
Communications
(Please include original email in any response)
=======Second Post==================================
:In article ,
:Navindra Umanee wrote:
:>Matt Dillon wrote:
:>> Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more
:>> attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that
:>> simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity
:>> to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for
:>
:>Ahh, but has anyone proved this detriment of performance by actual
:>testing and comparisons? Nice article, btw.
:>
:>-N.
Yes. There are a number of well known facts about both FreeBSD and Linux.
It's not a matter of 'proving' anything -- these are things that the
developers tend to agree on ( verse the 'rabble' who like to argue over
everything ).
Lets see if I can drag up a few.
* Linux syscall overhead is lower then FreeBSD's. e.g. 1uS vs 2uS,
roughly.
* FreeBSD VM management tends to perform considerably better when
memory is stressed. Mainly oweing to better selection of pages
to page-in and page-out. ( FreeBSD's reputation for running
well under load is not exaggerated ).
Under 0-stress situations, Linux's simpler algorithms provide a
small benefit.
(i.e. FreeBSD does more work figuring out what to page out or clean,
but it gets it all back by choosing the 'right' pages whereas Linux
does less work figuring out what to page out or clean, but loses
the advantage by choosing the 'wrong' pages).
* FreeBSD scales I/O load better, mainly oweing to clustering and
dynamic readahead. Linux does a little read-ahead, but it isn't
smart about it. For example, it does not attempt to avoid extra
seeks on read-ahead blocks. FreeBSD goes overboard trying to avoid
extra seeks ( a little too overboard in some cases
* Linux VM management currently depends on mapping physical memory
into KVM, which limits the amount of physical memory that can be
accomodated on 32 bit machines to approximately 2G. FreeBSD will
operate on 32 bit (Intel) boxes containing up to 4G of memory.
* A number of core Linux VM routines depend on scanning page tables,
which is very inefficient due to two things: First, shared pages
are scanned more then once and, second, scanning for page
classifications ( such as 'clean' or 'dirty' ) across the entire
set rather then keeping track of page classifications via separate
lists or queues. This is probably the single-biggest problem the
Linux VM system has.
This rears its ugly head when running programs that fork a lot,
such as web and news servers, sendmail, popper, and so on.
FreeBSD uses VM algorithms that are, roughly, independant of
its page tables and which tend to be O(1).
* Linux has been ported to a number of platforms. FreeBSD currently
only runs on Intel and Alpha, and the Alpha port still needs a lot
of work.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet
Communications
(Please include original email in any response)
Here's a question for the some posters out there.
.01 days, before all the commercial support. It still survived. And OpenBSD and NetBSD seem to be still alive, although they seem to be less popular than FreeBSD. Also, FreeBSD does have commercial users, and a more flexible license for businesses.
Occasionally I see someone post that *BSD is "in trouble" and will disappear sometime in the near future as other OSes take "market share."
Why do people make such claims? Is there any really strong evidence to support this? Please explain why *BSD is "in trouble."
Keep in mind that having little market share doesn't mean it will die. Imagine linux in
Aside from the often quoted examples of Yahoo! and Walnut Creek, there is a list of some others at the FreeBSD Gallery . And of course, this is not a complete list.
Please, just use the OS you like for the job you want to do, and don't pray for the death of excellent operating systems (OSes from unscrupulous companies like M$, bash all you want).
Is that the evolution of rendering algorithms, of computer systems, or the fact that the Matrix required less computational power than Titanic? After all, weren't 100+ Alphas used for Titanic?
*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....
This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)
Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess :-)
If i'm nost mistaken the rendering software used was linux based and thus emulated on the freebsd machine. Doing so was just cause the main person in charge was a hardcore freebsd guy and didnt really like going linux. They did sacrifice a lot of preformance due to that (refering to an older /. article on this subject). Also, that article went on to state that if they had freebsd based tools it would have done a better job.
;) )
Now, the fact that freebsd was used was just cause the guy in charge has a hardon for it, nothing more nothing less. It would have been different if Rob was in charge of that project. (I believe he'd use Mac OS
--
Is it my imagination, or does this 'article' seem to be more akin to advertising?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Correct. Renderman.
Charles Henrich uses FreeBSD in preference to Linux. He's contributed code/docs to the project, but he doesn't have commit access. This is a somewhat strange definition of "hardcore freebsd guy" you seem to be using.
False. A cite/URL for this /. article would be appreciated so I can respond to its FUD. If you don't have one, please don't bother repeating these allegations, because they're false.
And to others who've pointed it out; the description on this /. post is deceptive -- it's not a story about the Matrix, it's a Press Release (the words "Press Release" in the title of the web page and in the heading should have been a tip off to the more alert amongst you). This is why it's light on technical details. A more detailed story will hopefully be forthcoming for DaemonNews.
N
nik@freebsd.org
What the hell has happenned to slashdot, this used to be an INFORMED forum. These days is nothing more than a bunch of kiddies arguing how linux is superior over something they HAVE NEVER USED.
... when was the last time you TOTTALY rebuilt all the programs in your system quite flawlessly with one command.
DISCLAMER
( sorry if this offends the people that do not fit in the description above, i know there's a great deal of very smart and knowledgeable people still left here in slashdot and i hope that number grows
because we need you)
On the comparison of "LINUX" Vs " FreeBSD" you are all pretty wrong, FreeBSD is both a Distribution AND a kernel, not one like linux. if you want to compare distributions then go ahead, compare Redhat 5.2 versus fBSD 3.1-RELEASE.
The fact of the matter is that Linux distributions are for the most part ( with the exception of Debian all the way ) still bleeding edge and not the most stable systems without a GREAT deal of tweaking. As you can see from FBSD, this is way different as there are three current distributions
aimed at different purposes. ( -RELEASE , -CURRENT, and --STABLE )
Say all you may, but my experience with both a customized redhat with the 2.2.x kernell versus a 3.1 -RELEASE has shown me that FreeBSD still handles networking load quite better than a normall linux distribution. How can i tell this...
well, from about 25 hsoting servers that i administer. a great deal of them started as Linux boxes but, we only needed to test one freeBSD machine with the load of TWO linux boxes and we were converts.
as for the linux emulation in freeBSD....
first, is not "emulation " persay, is much more closer to what wine does, which is binary compability. To this day linux threads still perform better in FreeBSD. Of course some things are a bit slower, but , hey, this are things that were not originally aimed at freeBSD, is a god damn good show at the prowness of FreeBSD programmers.
I love linux, i use it a smy personal workstation at both home and work, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of squeezing that last drop of performance out of a x86 machine, fBSD does it much better than linux. Not only is the kernel more mature, but, even linux zealou shave to agree with this, linux distributions to date just plain suck ( for lack of a better word).
I mean, when was the last time you used a system as clean as the ports collection
Linux has a lot of promise, but , FreeBSD still handles load better, because it is a kernel totally tuned for the x86 arch.