From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 31 10:43:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from netbank.com.br (garrincha.netbank.com.br [200.203.199.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908B337B422 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:43:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from riel@conectiva.com.br) Received: from surriel.ddts.net (1-034.cwb-adsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.193.160.34]) by netbank.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EA94682D; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:41:53 -0300 (BRST) Received: from localhost (mffeqj@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by surriel.ddts.net (8.11.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4VHhZP09609; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:43:35 -0300 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:43:35 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@imladris.rielhome.conectiva To: "Albert D. Cahalan" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jandrese@mitre.org Subject: Re: Real "technical comparison" In-Reply-To: <200105310120.f4V1KIw327035@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_ > > 250,000 connections to a server running under both FreeBSD > > and Linux. I was able to do this without breaking a sweat > > on a correctly configured FreeBSD 4.3 system. > > How about a real benchmark? Good question indeed. All proposed benchmarks in this thread have been geared heavily towards one system or the other and are not at all "industry standard" benchmarks. > At www.spec.org I see SPECweb99 numbers for Solaris, AIX, > Linux, Windows, Tru64, and HP-UX. FreeBSD must be hiding, > because I don't see it. BSDI, Walnut Creek, and WindRiver > all have failed to submit results. > Linux is still #1 for 1 to 4 processors. The 8-way results > need to be redone on newer hardware (Windows is ahead now) > and Linux doesn't have 6-way or 12-way numbers. Last I heard the 8-way result with Windows had an "NC" (not qualified) next to it. OTOH, Linux' 8-way numbers still leave a lot to be desired ... > Go on, show some numbers. Stop hiding. *nod* We can all brag about our performance being better than the others, but unless some actual numbers on a standardised benchmark are being published, it's nothing more than just bragging and bullshitting each other. If FreeBSD's performance is as good as people say (which I'm not doubting, at least as far as the realistic claims go), then where are those impressively high specweb numbers? ;) regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message