From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 5 5:11:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from kweetal.tue.nl (kweetal.tue.nl [131.155.2.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0922437B7D3 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:11:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcov@toad.stack.nl) Received: from hermes.tue.nl [131.155.2.46] by kweetal.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id OAA12454 (ESMTP); Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:11:38 +0200 (MDT) Received: from deathstar (n188.dial.tue.nl [131.155.209.187]) by hermes.tue.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1C92E804 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:11:37 +0200 (CEST) From: "Marco van de Voort" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:10:36 +0100 Subject: Re: fork test References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Message-Id: <20000405121137.CF1C92E804@hermes.tue.nl> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Well, after very short time, both boxes responded to console switchings > > and things like that, but trying to run something like "ps", "w", > > "uptime" put machine quite on hold (about 2 minutes). The thing is that > > Linux finished runnig commands about 3 times faster than FreeBSD. What > > the heck does that suppose to mean?! I thought FreeBSD whould kick linux > > butt? > > FreeBSD spawned many more processes than Linux before it started being > unable to fork and was thus running many more live copies of the program? > You haven't really given/collected enough information to decide. Linux 2.2.x still supports only 1024 processes I believe. Rumour goes that 2.4 supports 16384 processes, so poster should try a 2.3.99pre kernel. P.s. this is one of the weirdest benchmarks I have ever seen :-) Marco van de Voort (MarcoV@Stack.nl) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message