From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Feb 15 15:47:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18109 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:47:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (garbanzo@congo-84.ppp.hooked.net [206.169.227.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18054 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA02246; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:48:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:48:52 -0800 (PST) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: Greg Lehey cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux In-Reply-To: <19980216075529.21596@freebie.lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sun, 15 February 1998 at 11:26:12 -0800, Alex wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 15 February 1998 at 6:18:06 +0000, John Kelly wrote: > >>> On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:38:12 -0600 (CST), John Goerzen > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Konrad Heuer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 1. The Linux scheduler which is very different from other UNIX > >>>>> schedulers (and thus the FreeBSD scheduler) behaves very poor when the > >>>>> system is heavily loaded (no fair scheduling!). > >>>> > >>>> In comparing Linux to SunOS and Solaris in heavliy-loaded systems, I can > >>>> say that Linux performed much better. However, I have not compared it > >>>> directly to FreeBSD. > >>> > >>> I have. Linux comes apart at the seams under load. FreeBSD just > >>> keeps going and going and going .... > >> > >> This ties in with just about every report I've heard about Linux, > >> though I have no personal experience in the area. I also find it hard > >> to believe that Linux should be able to beat Solaris 2 in this area. > > > > Heh. Try using Solaris x86 sometime. It's about on par with Windows NT > > obscurity and performance wise. > > OK, I was thinking of Solaris 2 on the Sparc. But I still would have > difficulty believing that claim too. I'd almost be willing to part with my Solaris x86 CDs, if they didn't make such good coasters, but Sol x86 is as bad as anything you've heard. The only possible exception is the SMP handling, which I've heard is quite good, seeing as how I have 1 cpu system, I haven't been able to test that. - alex A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message