From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Jun 16 16:46:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from superconductor.rush.net (superconductor.rush.net [208.9.155.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5703D37B406; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@superconductor.rush.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by superconductor.rush.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5GNjrx25830; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:45:49 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jonathan Fortin Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article Network performance by OS Message-ID: <20010616194549.M1832@superconductor.rush.net> References: <006701c0f6b9$dd6d89e0$3fac6395@alink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: <006701c0f6b9$dd6d89e0$3fac6395@alink>; from jfortin@akalink.com on Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 07:12:49PM -0400 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Jonathan Fortin [010616 19:13] wrote: > Hello, > > In order to perform a valid benchmark for stricly performance issues and let > aside stability trade offs, > A fair benchmark would be to purchase 3 exact systems, update BIOS, then > deploy Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows2k. > Tune them to the max, each perspective that could be modified to increase > performance, then run silly write/read test, connect() test whatever. > > And in your test, show all the performance options you used and whatnot, and > this benchmark should be redone periodly with new advices to show people > what OS is the fastest when it's leg is pulled. > > As for the benchmark briefly, It's biased because whoever did it knew fuck > nothing about Unix and Linux doesnt need tuning so Linux won period. > Linux is tuned out of the box, where the others are tuned for stability. Linux is not "tuned out of the box", Linux just allows for just about any subsystem to monopolize the kernel resources. Basically when you start to stress multiple subsystems on a Linux box that isn't tuned properly it all goes to hell. This is because for example your network buffers might eat up too much memory for you to be able to do a reasonable job at caching files. Also, I really hate it when people say Linux's disk IO is fast compared to FreeBSD, sure it's fast, but at the expense of possible massive corruption on a crash. Oh wait, Linux doesn't crash, does it? :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message