- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks
|
|
|
Comments (6)
Once we have btrfs you'll forget all about zfs....
I was surprised by this as well. Not about Ubuntu beating OpenSolaris. I expected that. Plenty of people have blogged about the slugginess of OpenSolaris. But I really expected FreeBSD to be just as fast of not faster than Ubuntu.
One of the selling points of Solaris is its C2 (common capability) auditing. When an organization needs this (e.g. health care or military), the slowdown due to C2 is an acceptable trade-off. OpenSolaris inherits this focus, although I'd prefer Solaris to OpenSolaris in a mission-critical environment.
FreeBSD is more concerned with doing something right ("the Unix way") than doing it fast. System optimization is simply not a priority for the *BSD systems.
FreeBSD is more concerned with doing something right ("the Unix way") than doing it fast. System optimization is simply not a priority for the *BSD systems.
I think their FreeBSD might've been a bit misconfigured. I went from Ubuntu 8.10 (AMD64) to FreeBSD 7.1-BETA2 (AMD64) and it's much much faster even if I skip the graphics card change (I have ati, and on freeBSD I can only use the OSS drivers. I enabled EXA and got latest drm so I have very fast 2D compared to fglrx on linux).
The UFS/FFS performance is extremely better compared to stock ext3 (see http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/05/25/fsyncers-and-curvebal... there's also a kernel discussion but I lost the link to that). I think they might've had softupdates turned off (but if they used the autopartitioner then it'd be turned on).
Also the new ULE2/3 scheduler in 7.1 is much better compared to CFS in my opinion even if it has some quirks. I haven't done real benchmarks tho, but to me this system is much more snappier, especially on starting multiple applications at once (1st time) and under load.
The UFS/FFS performance is extremely better compared to stock ext3 (see http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/05/25/fsyncers-and-curvebal... there's also a kernel discussion but I lost the link to that). I think they might've had softupdates turned off (but if they used the autopartitioner then it'd be turned on).
Also the new ULE2/3 scheduler in 7.1 is much better compared to CFS in my opinion even if it has some quirks. I haven't done real benchmarks tho, but to me this system is much more snappier, especially on starting multiple applications at once (1st time) and under load.
FreeBSD 7 has quite a few speed improvements, and much advantage in speed can come from using ports, which are compiled on and for your specific system.
I remember Ladislav Bodner commenting on the loss in speed on one of the Distrowatch servers when he moved it from FreeBSD to Debian. He just didn't have the time to build a server the FBSD way.
I'm not surprised that Linux (Ubuntu or any other) is faster. I'm also not surprised that OpenSolaris is slower. Ever try to run that live CD or install it?
I remember Ladislav Bodner commenting on the loss in speed on one of the Distrowatch servers when he moved it from FreeBSD to Debian. He just didn't have the time to build a server the FBSD way.
I'm not surprised that Linux (Ubuntu or any other) is faster. I'm also not surprised that OpenSolaris is slower. Ever try to run that live CD or install it?
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Now if only we could have ZFS....