From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Apr 25 6:16:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from clientmail.realtime.co.uk (simian.realtime.co.uk [194.205.134.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009F937B446 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from waynep@zaphod.realtime.co.uk) Received: from zaphod.realtime.co.uk ([194.205.134.208]) by clientmail.realtime.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 14sP9J-0006LM-01; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:16:05 +0100 Received: from waynep by zaphod.realtime.co.uk with local (Exim 3.20 #1) id 14sP9B-0008a5-00; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:57 +0100 From: Wayne Pascoe To: dleimbac@earthlink.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Misinformation References: <200104251242.FAA24271@hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Reply-To: wayne.pascoe@realtime.co.uk Date: 25 Apr 2001 14:15:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200104251242.FAA24271@hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dave Leimbach writes: > I have run into a few people who made the following false claims about > freeBSD. > These people sounded like they knew what they were talking about when I > first spoke with them. > > 1) Its based on Mach. > 2) The SMP in FreeBSD is far superior to even Linux 2.4.x > > I am sure there were more. This type of "I don't know what I am talking > about but it sounds good" attitude from whoever said it was very > convincing. . I'm not sure who made the second claim, but I run a server farm. We were completely a linux shop until 2 months ago. We had been holding out for the 2.4 Linux kernel as our supposed saviour. 2.2.x had been plagued by VM issues for the last 9 months. Upon loading 2.4.0 (problems also persist in 2.4.1) we found the following: VM was still broken under extreme io and network load. Software Raid 5 was trashed - when trying to rebuild an array, it would eat your disk. This was fixed in 2.4.1 So we bit the bullet and began the move to FreeBSD. It was a fairly heavy learning curve (new init system, new packaging system, sysctl for tweaking, etc.), but we're getting there. In all testing so far, FreeBSD has out performed Linux HUGELY. A Linux box, dual PIII-500 with 512MB of ram was running a site. The load average on the box was around 6-7. The site has been moved to a single processor PIII-800, with 256MB ram running FreeBSD. Load is down to 3-4 at peak times. So maybe the design is poor in some way, but the real world results have been well worth the change for us ! Just my 2c. -- - Wayne Pascoe E-mail: wayne.pascoe@realtime.co.uk Phone : +44 (0) 20 7544 4668 Mobile: +44 (0) 788 431 1675 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message