From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 4 8: 8:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from voyager.fisicc-ufm.edu (ip-46-094.guate.net [200.12.46.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DA214E3B for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obonilla@voyager.fisicc-ufm.edu) Received: (from obonilla@localhost) by voyager.fisicc-ufm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01283; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:01:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from obonilla) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:01:54 -0600 From: Oscar Bonilla To: David Kelly Cc: Greg Lehey , Rick Hamell , bitter@noah.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Need comparative data Message-ID: <19990804090154.B698@fisicc-ufm.edu> References: <199908040217.VAA83867@nospam.hiwaay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <199908040217.VAA83867@nospam.hiwaay.net>; from David Kelly on Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:17:42PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:17:42PM -0500, David Kelly wrote: > Greg Lehey writes: > > > > This is a popular opinion which is IMO unfounded. Yes, FreeBSD > > appears to handle high loads better (the Gartner Group report that > > somebody referred to suggests 40% more throughput), but you've got to > > be careful with any kind of benchmark. Microsoft has found an area > > where it can prove that NT beats the hell out of either FreeBSD or > > Linux. It's not a typical application, needless to say, but it goes > > to show that you need to be very careful in what you state. > > If I remember history right, back in the 2.0.0 or 2.0.5 days there was a > comparison of Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris x86. The Solaris results were > unmemorable other than both Linux and FreeBSD usually beat it, but not > always. Linux was faster than FreeBSD at small file tasks. Linux was > faster than FreeBSD up to about 25 processes. FreeBSD cleanly scaled up > to about 400 processes when Linux buckled at 100. By "buckled" I mean > internal inefficiencies started to make additional processes more > expensive to run than on a lightly loaded machine. Somebody at the time > attributed this behaviour to Linux using a simple linear table to manage > processes while FreeBSD used a hashed table. > > Think the above is somehow related to the Modern Urban Legend which > claims Linux is a better desktop machine, FreeBSD is a better server, > as at the keyboard Linux seemed faster than FreeBSD. > yes, it was a paper from a usenix conference. It also said that FreeBSD's TCP/IP Stack was the fastest of the three and that Linux's TCP/IP stack sort of sucked. Of course Linux folks have re-coded the TCP/IP stack since. It would be nice if someone had a machine with some disk space and the time to re-do the paper with the latest versions. Regards, -Oscar -- For PGP Public Key: finger obonilla@fisicc-ufm.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message