From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Mar  6 10:33:07 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA11690
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dyson@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA11683
          Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:33:06 -0800 (PST)
From: John Dyson <dyson>
Message-Id: <199603061833.KAA11683@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD comparison - it's time, I think!
To: brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com (Brandon Gillespie)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960306093301.3261A-100000@tombstone.sunrem.com> from "Brandon Gillespie" at Mar 6, 96 09:35:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> As far as raw benchmarks go, I'd suggest anybody who is about to install 
> FreeBSD install Linux first, run some benchmarks, record them (smile), 
> and then install FreeBSD and do the same.  That way we can get 
> comparisons on the _SAME HARDWARE_.  There is a stray IDE HD laying 
> around my office, I may take that and do said experiment on my own 
> workstation.  Collecting this sort of comparison is what we need.  
> Comparing 'nearly-the-same' computer just doesn't cut it--too much is left 
> open for debate.
> 
I agree, all of the Linux/FreeBSD benchmarks that I have posted have been on
the same hardware.    I have a Linux partition always bootable, with
a spare partition that can be EXT2FS or FFS at will.  I am not unbiased
however, but that is how I make sure that FreeBSD is not falling behind
in the areas that I work on.

John