From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Mar  6 13:47:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA28332
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA28318
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id IAA07776; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:40:49 +1100
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:40:49 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199603062140.IAA07776@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com, dyson@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD comparison - it's time, I think!
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
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 
>> ...
>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

This is fine if you know how to interpret the benchmarks, but for an
unbiased report the following are required:

- SAME partitions.  The outer tracks are usually faster.
- SAME level of tuning.  Benchark the release versions and spend a few
  few days learning the quirks of the install programs to make sure
  that you're testing vanilla versions, or benchmark tuned versions and
  spend a few months learning how to fine tune them similarly.

Bruce