Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:07:15 -0800 (PST) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: performance differences Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971123192821.13829B-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <199711240238.SAA24938@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > > > > check out : > > > > http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19970901S0125 > > > > for the result of performance tests on linux freebsd and windowsNT. > > > > > > FreeBSD was using 1/2 the memory used by the other systems. > > > FreeBSD was conservative in determinghte amount of memory > > > installed. The amount used is reported in the startup messages, > > > which the reviewers must have missed. > > > > > > they did not do the minimum of building a kernel to use > > > the larger amount of memory available > > > > The whole point of this was to test a machine "out of the box". I.E. doing > > as little customization as possible. If they had tested with 3.0 (a.k.a. > > -current) which sizes >64M OTH, methinks that FreeBSD would have come out > > on top. > > so they said, yet they also claimed that there was no warning > message...indicating a change would have been made if they > had read the boot messages....very confusing....but so are > the numeric results....thye published 100 users and 3000 user > for most systems, 10 users for NT, and 200 user for FreeBSD. > > i would have preferred numbers for all os'es for hte same number of > users. LOL, good luck getting NT to support 3000 users. However, I noticed upon reading this that Linux will automagically detect SMP systems (and I already know NT can kinda do this), that'd be cool if FBSD could do this too. - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971123192821.13829B-100000>