Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu!hahn From: hahn@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu (Mark Hahn) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 5 Apr 1996 07:29:20 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 80 Message-ID: <4k2i4g$n55@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> References: <4jn4qp$6p@darkstar.my.lan> <stephenkDp7nHo.369@netcom.com> <4jrhth$66a@hoopoe.psc.edu> <4jve3t$cfe@hermes.synopsys.com> <4k0m0f$68j@hoopoe.psc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14283 comp.os.linux.development.system:20925 comp.os.linux.x:28912 comp.os.linux.hardware:35796 comp.os.linux.setup:49593 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:507 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3065 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2845 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16935 > These results were published at the January 1996 USENIX technical conference, > in a paper by Kevin Lai and Mary Baker from Stanford. I'm sure this > paper is available on the web -- I apologize for not having a URL, but > I'm looking at the hard copy now. The bottom line is that Linux CPU > performance is better than FreeBSD's (not surprising, since Linux > is so intel-specific) but it's networking performance is, to put it > most kindly, a joke. this is asinine foolishness; BSD bigotry like this is usually found in a matrix of Sun true-believerhood, and then only in CIS/MIS groups. 1. Linux networking works very well. it has always been able to saturate the wire, at least 10 Mbps wires. 2. Linux NFS also works well, though its default configuration (1k packets!) was braindead and performance limiting. 3. Linux is not "intel-specific": ask Linus about his Alpha, or DaveM about his Sun. 4. none of the preceeding facts are apropos the the Lai/Baker paper, which is interesting, but now mostly for merely historic reasons. here are some specific comments (on slides): 5/19: until late '95, the ncr810 driver was functional but crippled. 6/19: the paper says that 1.2.8 and 2.0.5R were non-development releases at the time; how often are FreeBSD releases made? 11/19: the old Linux scheduler is gone. 13/19: I was a little disappointed to find ttcp confirming the ~15 MB/s bandwidth for UDP or TCP. then I realized that the paper was talking megaBITs! in other words, my up-to-date machine is about 8x faster than Lai/Baker's. the bottom line is that the paper is an interesting snapshot of features and performance as of a year ago. it's not relevant today. it would be somewhat interesting to compare current Linux _distributions_ with similar representatives from the *BSD world. I'm thinking of RedHat and/or LinuxFT versus the latest stable FreeBSD or even BSDI. I'm just guessing, but I expect that the major Linux distributions avoid the configuration blunders in the Lai/Baker paper. incidentally, I am not a Linux bigot: I simply have no experience with FreeBSD and dislike all the silly Linux-fragging that community does. if someone wants to tell me how I can install FreeBSD on my machine (p5/133, ide, internet) in less than an hour, I'd love to try it. > In all cases, the versions of the software tested was the latest version > of the software which was a "production release" at that time -- no beta > software was tested. This is the Right Thing to do. do you install patches on your commercial-OS boxes? naughty you! stability is God, or is that 'stasis'? you can dress up this attitude in terms of 'production quality', but it's the whole reason why SunOS 4.1.3 is still in use... > It is completely > improper for anyone to recommend the 1.3.x kernels for commercial use, > since the 1.3.x is a development tree, and is specifically promised > to NOT be stable. nonsense, and mindlessly conservative, too. the development tree is just that: where all current code goes. there are times when it's utterly bogus, and most of the time it's hugely superior. Linux (and Linus, I presume,) is driven by developer desire, which means that there's almost no incentive to keep patching a 'stable' release. this is a disadvantage to the mid-level user, someone who isn't capable of the modest effort it takes to track the 1.3 tree, but who is aware of the weaknesses of crusty old stuff like 1.2. for purely political reasons (this kind of comparison) I'd like to see major Linux releases a little more frequently. regards, mark hahn. -- operator may differ from spokesperson. hahn@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~hahn/