Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 16:42:08 +1100 From: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, Jeff Wyman <wysoft@wysoft.tzo.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <00111916420801.13422@shalimar.net.au> In-Reply-To: <14870.23240.379989.419970@guru.mired.org> References: <14870.23240.379989.419970@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Saturday 18 November 2000 21:32, Mike Meyer wrote: > Jeff Wyman <wysoft@wysoft.tzo.com> types: > > First off, please respond to my email address, as I have too much mail to > > subscribe to yet another *BSD-related list. > > > > I'm going to be implementing a Compaq Proliant 4000 sometime soon as > > a postgresql database server (quad Pentium 66), and I'm trying to decide > > which open-sourced SMP OS would be a better choice. I could try either and > > pound them out with dnetc or seti for a few days, but I don't have a whole > > lot of time for that. > > > > I know little of Linux or FreeBSD's support for SMP, so I'd really like to > > hear of some unbiased personal experiences with the two, although I would > > ultimately prefer to end up using FreeBSD as my final solution here. > > All the reports indicate that Linux SMP is better than -stable. SMP in > -stable uses one lock for almost everything, which serializes things > that don't need to be serialized. > > -current has gone to a new generation of SMP code (from, or influenced > by, BSDI) and so works much better. However, it's not ready for > production yet. > > If you can afford to wait for 5.0-RELEASE (2nd/3rd quarter next > year?), or can upgrade to it when it comes out, you are then back to > the standard FreeBSD vs. Linux arguments. If you have to have the > fastest thing you can get now, then Linux SMP will provide better > performance. > I was unaware of the above, but I have been running an SMP kernel for over a year now, tracking 3 STABLE. I have now gone 4 STABLE. I have always been satisfied with the SMP performance, I can't see where I'm losing anything. I run two copies of seti and they sit there at 99.02% cpu utilization, each. Where am I *losing* performance? I'm not trying to argue with you, I just can't find a referent for what you are saying/ The performance difference would have to be minor by my observation. Unless I am totally misunderstanding something. Geoff -- count@shalimar.net.au Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: IfDXtMAQlRUjnTU4UvjtRLfLbdlcXl5o iQA/AwUBOhdoMPh4xz7LU/evEQL5AwCfQqvMdHSS7X1Wg4LHu531YhwgDR4An21g n0B+BnlzB2WaMCA360KbGkYF =RDM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00111916420801.13422>