Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:19:02 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Murray Stokely <murray@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <200012190319.eBJ3J2753408@earth.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012181442290.25125-100000@pike.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: I'm trying to come up with a comprehensive comparison that shows off :the strengths of FreeBSD when compared to alternative operating :systems. In particular, I would like information about : : : * Large BSD installations : * Performance advantages of FreeBSD : * Specific subsystems where we excel : * Other technical reasons why _YOU_ choose BSD. : : The current work in progress is available at : : http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/ : : I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can then be :used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at trade shows, :published on bsdi.com and/or freebsd.org, etc.. : : Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. : : Thanks, : : - Murray My recommendation: Compare FreeBSD and Linux against Windows and Sun. Don't compare FreeBSD against Linux. The plain fact of the matter is that FreeBSD and Linux are rapidly converging in regards to performance and reliability. Anything you print that is true *now* is not likely to be true in a few months, or a few years. The article will live longer if it doesn't get outdated too quickly. FreeBSD has adopted considerable technology from Linux and Linux has adapted considerable technology from FreeBSD (The theory behind their new VM management/paging system is based on FreeBSD's VM theory, even if none of the code is). I've borrowed a number of things from Linux ... like the more efficient cpu synchronization in the 4.x mplock code. If there is anything we can say as a comparison, it's more general... the ports system and its ability to enforce reasonable filesystem structure, the fact that our distribution is a cohesive whole, and so forth. I think we are still considerably better under heavy loads, and that is likely to stay true for another year. Maybe. Nobody has anything even close to Kirk's softupdates, but Linux has IBM's AFS and XFS under development (though, personally, I don't think XFS is really what Linux needs or wants. Log structured filesystems have serious theoretical performance problems and are not suited well to systems with only a few disk drives to play with). On the flip side, linux will take us out to lunch on MP and parallel disk and network throughput and we won't be able to compete until probably 5.1. I think our (BSDI's) interrupt thread technology is superior, but it is going to take a lot of tuning and optimization to make it effective (hence 5.1 rather then 5.0). I think the Linux kernel API is also finally starting to stabilize, so we have a very rosy future with our Linux compatibility suite. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012190319.eBJ3J2753408>