Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> To: "Jay D. Nelson" <jdn@qiv.com> Cc: Paul Dekkers <psd@worldaccess.nl>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD is slower than Linux !? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970813212110.3051A-100000@luke.cpl.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813221305.1519B-100000@acp.qiv.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You're quite right -- but that's dangerous on a production system no > matter what the OS. I should have kept my fingers quite. You see, I Isnt that the default for Linux? I was just pointing out that to be fair you should compare filesystems that are mounted the same. It would be far more interesting to see the numbers both mounted the same. > My experience with Linux is that it poops out under load -- and some > of the distributions aren't much better than NT. Blame the pud > whackers who put together the distributions -- not the kernel. Thats probaly Linux's biggest problem. It has way too many distributions. Most OS's, like FreeBSD, only have 1 official distribution. You can have 2 Linux system, but are really quite different OS's. > My point was simply that when you put both under a real life multiuser > load, the differences are fairly obvious. And frankly, I wouldn't use > async mounts for anything other than news. Even under a light load, I find Linux not too stable(my experience it has been less stable than NT, which I like and use BTW)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970813212110.3051A-100000>