From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Aug 3 19:49:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E0414C10 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:49:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Received: from nospam.hiwaay.net (tnt8-216-180-15-252.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.15.252]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA00659; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:47:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nospam.hiwaay.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA83867; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:17:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Message-Id: <199908040217.VAA83867@nospam.hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Greg Lehey Cc: Rick Hamell , bitter@noah.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Need comparative data In-reply-to: Message from Greg Lehey of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:58:42 +0930." <19990803115842.L62948@freebie.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:17:42 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greg Lehey writes: > > This is a popular opinion which is IMO unfounded. Yes, FreeBSD > appears to handle high loads better (the Gartner Group report that > somebody referred to suggests 40% more throughput), but you've got to > be careful with any kind of benchmark. Microsoft has found an area > where it can prove that NT beats the hell out of either FreeBSD or > Linux. It's not a typical application, needless to say, but it goes > to show that you need to be very careful in what you state. If I remember history right, back in the 2.0.0 or 2.0.5 days there was a comparison of Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris x86. The Solaris results were unmemorable other than both Linux and FreeBSD usually beat it, but not always. Linux was faster than FreeBSD at small file tasks. Linux was faster than FreeBSD up to about 25 processes. FreeBSD cleanly scaled up to about 400 processes when Linux buckled at 100. By "buckled" I mean internal inefficiencies started to make additional processes more expensive to run than on a lightly loaded machine. Somebody at the time attributed this behaviour to Linux using a simple linear table to manage processes while FreeBSD used a hashed table. Think the above is somehow related to the Modern Urban Legend which claims Linux is a better desktop machine, FreeBSD is a better server, as at the keyboard Linux seemed faster than FreeBSD. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message