Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 07:55:29 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <19980216075529.21596@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980215112533.234A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>; from Alex on Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:26:12AM -0800 References: <19980215160519.03942@freebie.lemis.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980215112533.234A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 15 February 1998 at 11:26:12 -0800, Alex wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 February 1998 at 6:18:06 +0000, John Kelly wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:38:12 -0600 (CST), John Goerzen >>> <jgoerzen@alexanderwohl.complete.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Konrad Heuer wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1. The Linux scheduler which is very different from other UNIX >>>>> schedulers (and thus the FreeBSD scheduler) behaves very poor when the >>>>> system is heavily loaded (no fair scheduling!). >>>> >>>> In comparing Linux to SunOS and Solaris in heavliy-loaded systems, I can >>>> say that Linux performed much better. However, I have not compared it >>>> directly to FreeBSD. >>> >>> I have. Linux comes apart at the seams under load. FreeBSD just >>> keeps going and going and going .... >> >> This ties in with just about every report I've heard about Linux, >> though I have no personal experience in the area. I also find it hard >> to believe that Linux should be able to beat Solaris 2 in this area. > > Heh. Try using Solaris x86 sometime. It's about on par with Windows NT > obscurity and performance wise. OK, I was thinking of Solaris 2 on the Sparc. But I still would have difficulty believing that claim too. Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980216075529.21596>