From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 29 12:04:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5DD1065670 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:04:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAF48FC0C for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5TBA1WU044337; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q5TBA1ao044334; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Julien Cigar In-Reply-To: <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: References: <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anatomy of Perfomance tests X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:04:08 -0000 >> That said, I think that the Linux kernel performs better simply due to >> wider adoption (larger developer base, wider set of use-cases, etc) >> and thus a higher chance of getting performance improvements. > > Note that stability matters too. of course - this is what i pointed out at first. the second is clear team managing a kernel, and support. What i recently get when getting FreeBSD crash problems is something that you'll not get from linux. It found out to be my fault. I would generally call properly configured FreeBSD as rock-stable. The filesystem performance was close, and comparing dangerous linux filesystem to UFS isn't good. i would recommend comparing -o async mounted UFS with that test. Second - i would like to see how responsive linux server is WHILE performing that tests ;) high latencies under load was a problem i always had with linux when still using it. But scientific computing task results are FreeBSD fault, and the some reason is clang compiler,. With recent gcc-recompiled binaries it would be similar result. Similar as with compute-bound processes OS doesn't have much to change. Maybe, if there were more threads run than available, scheduler could matter. And i think FreeBSD scheduler would clearly win.