Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:01:54 -0600
From:      Oscar Bonilla <obonilla@fisicc-ufm.edu>
To:        David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>
Cc:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Rick Hamell <hamellr@hamell.hpc1.com>, bitter@noah.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Need comparative data
Message-ID:  <19990804090154.B698@fisicc-ufm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199908040217.VAA83867@nospam.hiwaay.net>; from David Kelly on Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:17:42PM -0500
References:  <grog@lemis.com> <199908040217.VAA83867@nospam.hiwaay.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990804090154.B698>