From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Aug 20 19:23:08 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA03953
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:23:08 -0700
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA03943
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:23:03 -0700
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA00897; Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:22:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199508210222.TAA00897@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: John Dyson <dyson@freefall.FreeBSD.org>
cc: terry@cs.weber.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Why Linux? (fwd) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 20 Aug 1995 18:48:39 PDT."
             <199508210148.SAA01536@freefall.FreeBSD.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 19:22:42 -0700
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


In fact, why don't you get someone or you can do it yourself and 
make an html page. This sort of information has to go out and 
reach people.

	My sound bits,
	Amancio

>>> John Dyson said:
 > I just did a competitive performance analysis of FreeBSD vs. Linux.  I
 > can't say that FreeBSD was the CLEAR winner, but it was much faster
 > in many key areas.  The only place that I can see that Linux is
 > architecturally faster is in the async filesystem stuff.  Generally,
 > FreeBSD's networking (TCP) is at least 50% faster.  FreeBSD's VM
 > stuff is much faster.  I cannot see where people say that Linux needs
 > less memory either.  I ran some memory loading benchmarks on FreeBSD and
 > Linux, where FreeBSD was a generic kernel and Linux was a "nice" subset
 > V1.3.20.  It appears that FreeBSD handles loads much better.  Also,
 > when running Linux I noticed an "old-friend" -- the bouncy SVR3 feel.
 > Things generally appear to run a bit slower on Linux, including sequential
 > file I/O.  I am sure that Linux can fix up these minor performance nits,
 > but it does seem to run ok.
 > 
 > I have results on request -- I just don't want to post them yet.  If there
 > is a big demand, I will though..
 > 
 > John
 > dyson@root.com