Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:48:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990623203542.993P-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <19990623223038.A6422@Denninger.Net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Karl Denninger wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 11:24:03PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > > > At 4:39 PM +0930 6/23/99, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > >On Tuesday, 22 June 1999 at 23:52:25 -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > > >> [someone said] > > > >>| [someone said] > > > >>|> Ok, so let's follow Microsoft's industry-leading documentation > > > >>|> standards. > > > >>| > > > >>| He said "commercial", not "toy". > > > >> > > > >> Given that I've just spent a very unhappy couple of weeks > > > >> demonstrating that this "toy" you're referring to outperforms > > > >> us by a factor of anything from 3 to 10 on a range of basic > > > >> benchmarks, > > > > > > > > Really? This is so different from anything I've heard that I'm > > > > astounded. How about some details? > > > > > > I also found Mike's comment on performance interesting. I assume > > > he's talking about system performance, and not documentation > > > performance. Was this when testing WinNT-2000, or just the latest > > > service pack on WinNT 4? > > > > s/interesting/unbelievable/g and you've got my reaction. This makes so little > > sense that I can't even imagine it. > > Me too. > > I've found FreeBSD to outperform NT-anything in any task you throw at the > machine from web service to Samba for file and print service for PCs > running Windows. > > Its more stable too; the stability is a free "bonus" that comes at no > extra charge :-). I wish people wouldn't jump in with claims like this... (not the stability part) Ok well here are some real numbers for you.. Win NT 4processors 1GB ram + raid array + IIS webbench... 4000 transactions per second... FreeBSD.. Identical hardware.. 1450 transactions per seccond Linux: 2000 per second Solaris86 6000 per second With Netbench: NT blows us away. (we're talking an order of magnitude faster) I'm not going ot give real numbers as I don't have them readily at hand but they are something like 12MB/Sec for FreeBSD vs 90 MB/sec for NT and 120MB/sec for linux. Matt has some patches that raise the 12 to 35 and kirk has some changes that may raise the numbers to 70 or more, and John has some patches that may add more again, but it's all theory, and some of the patches have had less results than we expected. With Uniprocessor things are a lot more equal. but we still suck on netbench. This is due to the exact form of netbench which is exactly nonoptimal for FreeBSD. Also becaosue of the GKL (Giant Kernel Lock) (see Solaris's results) Basically there are some applications and benchmarks for which FreeBSD will really suck. We're working on them but some things are just a result of how we do things. So don't assume that NT figures must be bad.. we have too many weaknesses in our own code to throw stones. It'd be intersting to see how FreeBSD 1.1.5 would have performed on the same tests. Sometimes we've gained in general performance but lost in some specific cases. julian 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?Pine.BSF.3.95.990623203542.993P-100000>