Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tommy=20Hallgren?= <thallgren@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark oddities Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007261554320.90440-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20000726084402.23000.qmail@web119.yahoomail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Tommy Hallgren wrote: > I'm reading http://www-scf.usc.edu/~akhavans/Linux_vs_FreeBSD.pdf and have a > couple of questions I hope someone here could answer. I thought this paper was quite poorly written, in general - for example, the author is unable to stop gushing about Linux during the first half of the paper (he talks about how standards-compliant it is, the "exemplary performance" it achieves, etc) but then seems to switch abruptly mid-stream, and comes to the conclusion that neither is better than the other. There are several outright fallacies in his reasoning which invalidate some of the conclusions and testing methodologies (such as the getpid() thing, the claim (allegedly from a Linux manpage, no less!) that FreeBSD copies the entire address space on fork(), the claim that FreeBSD can "run fewer copies of the Apache binary" since the binary size is larger, that it is unable to run on >2 CPUs), etc. Basically, it's so poorly done it's not worth worrying about (until it shows up on slashdot, sigh) Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007261554320.90440-100000>