From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Aug 15 02:43:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA18026 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nic.7da.nl (anx1p4.cc.ruu.nl [131.211.249.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18019 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uucp@localhost by nic.7da.nl id LAA19914; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:22:27 +0200 Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] by gromit.nev.ml.org id WAA00157; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:20:34 +0200 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:20:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: Paul Dekkers X-Sender: paul@gromit.nev.ml.org To: "Jay D. Nelson" cc: Shawn Ramsey , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD is slower than Linux !? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Jay D. Nelson wrote: >You're quite right -- but that's dangerous on a production system no >matter what the OS. I should have kept my fingers quite. You see, I >look at FreeBSD as a _production_ system. And frankly, I've found that >it does as good a job and in some areas better that commercial Unices >like AIX, Solaris and AT&TSVR4. In fact I use it in just such an >environment. and what do you think of fBSD as an internet server, or fileserver? choose another os instead of FreeBSD or? >My experience with Linux is that it poops out under load -- and some >of the distributions aren't much better than NT. Blame the pud >whackers who put together the distributions -- not the kernel. (which distrib? rh/slack/debian?) >My point was simply that when you put both under a real life multiuser >load, the differences are fairly obvious. And frankly, I wouldn't use >async mounts for anything other than news. Hmm... I tried to mount my harddisk with the async option, but I'd say it doesn't differ much; Linux fBSD fBSD with async dd-test 2.61 4.95 4.78 that's not that nice if you want to run a fileserver. >On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Shawn Ramsey wrote: > >>> Hmm... It might be revealing if you tried all of that with a couple of >>> compiles and a tar of /usr running simultaneously. Final combined >>> times may be more revealing. >>> >>> -- Jay >>> >>> On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Paul Dekkers wrote: >>> >>> >Hi >>> > >>> >I did some speed tests and I'd like to hear some reaction about this. >>> > >>> > Linux FreeBSD >>> >dd 2.61 4.95 dd if=/dev/zero of=/test bs=1024 count=5000 >>> >gzip 12.50 11.01 gzip -9 test >>> >gunzip 3.86 8.12 >>> >sync 4.21 0.9 -> So it seems FreeBSD writes everything to >>> > disk directly?! WHY? This makes FreeBSD >>> > much slower! >>> >unzips 4.45 41.92 decompress the sendmail distr >>> >compil 353.79 371.87 compile sendmail (makesendmail) >>> > >>> >Yes, I used the same (slow) disk on my i486 >>> >But I was really surprised discovering that FreeBSD is much slower in disk >>> >access than Linux, so why is the filesystem called FFS (fast-filesystem?!) >>> >;-) >>> > >>> >But, my main question -> I think FreeBSD is that slow because it writes >>> >everything to disk directly, without a good cache. Why is this like it is? >>> >This does not make FreeBSD very attractive for me to use as a fileserver >>> >(nfs or samba) or e.g. a mail server. >> >>Do be fair, I think you should mount the FreeBSd disks asyncronously. By >>default, it is set to Synchronously. Linux, at least it used to be this >>way, is mounted asynch. Disk access is HUGELY increases under FreeBSD if >>it is set to asynch. (mount -o async /dev/filesystem) >> > >-- Jay > -= Paul =- __ _ / |_| | / _ \ Paul Dekkers | o o `. E-Mail: Paul.Dekkers@nev.ml.org | O N.E.V - Nescio Ergo Valeo `.___/ /` \