LWN.net Logo

FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

Posted Nov 6, 2005 3:58 UTC (Sun) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559)
In reply to: FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0 by cventers
Parent article: FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

>> Take a look at the other benchmarks linked on this page.

yeah, from someone else's post, so don't claim them as your "source" after the fact.

in any case that survey compares the 2.6 kernel and freeBSD 5.1 quite favorably. it would be useful if this were more up to date, but it is very detailed.


(Log in to post comments)

FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

Posted Nov 6, 2005 7:13 UTC (Sun) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

I was familiar with the 'fefe' benchmark and have been for some months
(remember, it's old enough to have tested Linux 2.6.0-test7). If you're
going to disagree with me, do it on factual grounds...

>> yeah, from someone else's post, so don't claim them as your "source"
after the fact.

I'm sure you don't believe that it is possible I've actually seen that
benchmark before. Yet, regardless, this statement of yours is totally
worthless as it is a direct attack on me versus sane discussion of the
subject matter.

FreeBSD did seem to do fairly well for most of the benchmarks, indeed.
However, look at the Newsforge MySQL benchmarks - all three BSDs suffered
terribly in the jump from 1 to 2 CPUs.

As a side note, NetBSD turned out to be misconfigured, because at the
time there was an *undocumented* gotcha that you had to set
PTHREAD_CONCURRENCY in the environment in order to actually allow the
software to go parallel. Yet this did not save the day for the other two
BSD's.

The bottom line on this performance argument is this:

1. Linux beats FreeBSD in nearly every benchmark I've seen for a while,
either by a little or by a lot;
2. The above is especially true when the number of CPUs starts to rise.

FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

Posted Jan 10, 2006 0:41 UTC (Tue) by jtanis (guest, #35077) [Link]

Your proving your own ignorance here. 5.x series didn't even become stable until 5.4. Much of the work that was done, was on removing the GIL to improve SMP (as well as UP performance) down the road. The early 5.x versions were never really expected to win any performance tests, they were a *transitionary* period. At this point in time (which was like.. what, 3/4 years ago?) the 4.x series still outperformed the 5.x series. Fact of the matter is, if your "proof" is older than an operating systems last two stable releases (by a number of years) your not using accurate information.

Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds