Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!szdc!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:12:35 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 49 Message-ID: <32F8A363.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> <5c8jlm$50u@cynic.portal.ca> <m23evrulla.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <5cdqos$e6k@camel1.mindspring.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970201040446.16129A-100000@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu> <32F378FC.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <slrn5ekm26.5ml.ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar> <32F68743.2781E494@freebsd.org> <slrn5feb63.93l.ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar> <32F73973.167EB0E7@freebsd.org> <slrn5fejrn.353.bet@onyx.interactive.net> <32F788CE.7DA1@indy.celebration.net> <ywtvi87rgwh.fsf@math.ucsb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:156033 comp.os.linux.advocacy:82328 comp.os.linux.setup:95378 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2224 Axel Boldt wrote: > > "John S. Dyson" <dyson@indy.celebration.net> writes: > > > If you are comparing a FreeBSD V2.1 kernel with Linux 2.X, you'll > > find that Linux is faster in many ways. FreeBSD V2.1 is of the > > Linux 1.2.X vintage, and we sorely need to release a 2.2 kernel > > (which outperforms Linux in some important and not so important > > ways.) Run benchmarks of your choice and you'll see. > > [...] > > > Of course, the main reason for upgrading is for performance and > > stability, > > You just admitted above that the current released version of Linux is > faster than the current released version of FreeBSD, so "performance" > is a vaporware argument. > Actually I said "in many ways" which means NOT in every way. Even 2.1.X is faster in very important ways than the latest greatest Linux kernel. There are ways that each performs very well, however 2.1.X comes out behind in some LL benchmarks (which are questionable in measuring real world perf.) The FreeBSD users who NEED the higest perf possible, use the 2.2 (or -current) branches anyway (which tend to be even better than the released code lately.) > Higher "stabilitiy" of FreeBSD is often > claimed and never proven, (and also hard to disprove), but I would > guess that it is very likely a leftover from Linux 1.0.x days. > Nope, still getting Linux converts due to stability under loading issues. It is hard to create a metric for this, other than experience. > > Maybe FreeBSD 2.2 will come out faster if its developers spend more > time on the kernel mailing lists and less on advocacy groups. > Have you run FreeBSD 2.2? It is very fast, and not just in certain LL benchmarks. We even implemented an async filesystem option (so that we can be just as loose with the users data as Linux is by default.) I suspect that the reason that Linux is perceived to be faster by some people is the default -async filesystem option anyway... John