Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    it was from 2006, yes. But hey, since then nothing really changed. The state of fs in *BSD still sucks. No changes there. The pattern is pretty simple. Over the years the *BSD fanboys are hyping some stuff (like softupdates, or their pretty new scheduler), just to get blown out of the water as soon, as benchmarks by non-*bsd devs/fanboys are coming in.

    Some things never change.

    Comment


    • #32
      heh heh... Yes, nothing has changed.

      If we're going to dig up old junk on the web:

      http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

      That really brings me back... mounting filesystem async in production. Great idea. Performance is king, after all.

      If you're unfortunate enough to make a living at systems/network administration, you'll come to realize how much each OS sucks in its own special way. You'll shout curses at 3:00 in the morning at microsoft, linux developers, sun, freebsd developers, openbsd developers, apple, cisco, netgear, hp, dell, sgi, checkpoint, and the rest of them.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rivald View Post
        Nice, a benchmark from 2006. I seem to recall a benchmark from 2000 where windows 2000 blew away a heavily tuned Redhat. Perhaps we can drag that up and make the argument that windows blows linux away? If old benchmarks are okay, maybe we should use them? Perhaps the benchmarks should have included deleting the files, too? Looks like the 2006 benchmarks weren't so favorable to linux.

        I think they should rerun it with OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, and Ubuntu, all with debugging turned on.

        I don't understand why linux fans try so hard.
        I don't understand why you can't see that FreeBSD fan started. I can show you that Linux just outperform your favorable system:

        http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html

        Linux 2.6.20(!) kicked ass your FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708...

        I'm sure the whole point of the benchmark was to show linux as better than everything else, but really... at least take real releases and not betas.
        Bulshit... You didn't see previous one. It's something common that freebsd fanboys usually start flames.

        EDIT:

        Benchmarks made by bsd devs are REALLY objective XD. I fell from my chair when I saw their last revelation - they said that FreeBSD 7 is 15% faster in MySQL (or PostGreSQL), then I searched for some benchmarks and even Linux 2.6.22 was faster.

        @energyman

        Exactly.
        Last edited by kraftman; 11-29-2008, 09:09 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by energyman View Post
          and there are many, many links showing linux scaling very well with lots of CPUs.

          Hmm...

          SunOS has nothing to do with Solaris. When they changed the name they changed the basis of their kernel too. 'Original' solaris is also known for tons of broken crap. Broken tar, broken find, etc pp.

          You could also argue, that Phoronix used the slowest linux out there, instead of something fast.
          A quick googling showed some examples of bad scaling:

          http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8769
          "And if Iím not correct, you donít currently see the level of geometric performance increases on Linux above 16 cores like you do with UNIX. The maturity in the Linux kernel for this level of enterprise performance and stability on this type of hardware just isnít there yet."


          "Gracenote, which provides a media recognition and metadata service for MP3 users (the CDDB database familiar to iTunes users), agrees. "We found the threading model in Linux was problematic. You get to a certain number of concurrent threads and the OS just slows way down," says Matthew Leeds, vice president of operations at Gracenote. Solaris "just works for us.""




          But bad scaling is of course to be expected. Linus Torvalds says that Linux evolves just as nature; evolution. Whenever something is broken in Linux he will redesign it into something better. Just as evolution.

          To me that is less optimal. How can something be good if you totally redesign it from scratch all the time? v1.0 is never good. You have to polish it for a long time before it is stable and good. Just like Windows, they rewrite everything and first at SP2 windows becomes quite stable. The first iterations suck badly. Dont you agree? And, the constant redesigning is also one of the reasons Linux is never back compatible. There are also lots of links on this. And, also the reason behind the bad coding and all the errors and bugs in the Linux kernel, that Linux kernel dev Andrew Morton speaks of:
          http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/
          Now Linux is 6.4 million lines of code. It must be impossible to keep all that monolithic Linux kernel with 6.4 million lines of code, bugg free. How can one KERNEL be that big? If you count the new lines, comments etc, Linux kernel is >10 million lines of code. I remember the whole Windows NT was 10 million lines of code. Bloat? Ridicolous. You know, the less code, the better. Right?

          Solaris first revision, SunOS, sucked and at the next attempt SUN knew how to do it right -> Solaris. Linux is at it first revision now, and it sucks when stressed enough, because of all the bugs that Andrew talks of. It is a desktop OS, not a Server OS. Here you see some quick googled links what what happens when you stress Linux. Linux is stable at up to 60% or so utilisation, and Solaris stable up to 100% just as mainframes.

          http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...le.php/3745996

          http://lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/...ver-Linux.html

          Comment


          • #35
            The funny thing is that this benchmark reminds me why ZFS blows away the other filesystems. What the benchmark doesn't show is that ZFS is more reliable.

            If you've used ZFS professionally, you'd realize that was also the case... it's better than LVM, Sun's disksuite and the BSD equivalents (probally gvinum on FreeBSD, and raidframe on OpenBSD and NetBSD.)

            I'd say ZFS is the real winner here... it's particularly impressive considering how slow Solaris is at certain operations (if you've administered it professionally, you'll know what I mean) - and this is even an RC. Slowlaris no more!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rivald View Post
              The funny thing is that this benchmark reminds me why ZFS blows away the other filesystems. What the benchmark doesn't show is that ZFS is more reliable.

              If you've used ZFS professionally, you'd realize that was also the case... it's better than LVM, Sun's disksuite and the BSD equivalents (probally gvinum on FreeBSD, and raidframe on OpenBSD and NetBSD.)

              I'd say ZFS is the real winner here... it's particularly impressive considering how slow Solaris is at certain operations (if you've administered it professionally, you'll know what I mean) - and this is even an RC. Slowlaris no more!
              The same situation can be with Phoronix benchmarks. If something is slower it can be more reliable etc. but it's not a rule.

              Comment


              • #37
                True. Benchmarks aren't necessarily relevant, anyway. I'm sure there are MS benchmarks out there showing Windows 2008 as being faster than everything else.

                For any professional work, I prefer reliable over fast. That's what I like about ZFS (and it's still fast.) I've used AFS in production environments, and it might be the best of all, in some ways, but it's way more of a hassle to manage.

                Comment


                • #38
                  @kebabbert

                  You're repeating some myths introduced by some group of people. There is known problem with "bad scalling" on Linux just, because some idiots test it with broken/bad/not Linux friendly library. If you replace it scaling is great.

                  ...You know, the less code, the better. Right?
                  Total bullshit. What additional features and drivers have to core Linux kernel parts? And on Linux works probably far more people then on other operating systems.

                  @rivald

                  ZFS is in many aspects probably the best file system right now.

                  I'm sure there are MS benchmarks out there showing Windows 2008 as being faster than everything else.
                  That's for sure
                  Last edited by kraftman; 11-30-2008, 08:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    BLABLA
                    just look at the Top 500 supercomputers. Huge machines with thousands of CPUs.

                    And now ask yourself 'why are most of them using linux'?
                    And then ask yourself 'why is nobody using Solaris'?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      uh, I was wrong, there is one(!) Supercomputer using Opensolaris (not even solaris... )
                      http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/os

                      Open Solaris 1 0.20 % 18540 20643 2048
                      compares nicely with the 454 or so Linux using supercomputers...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        > And remember that it is well known that Solaris does not shine with
                        > one or 2 CPUs.

                        I don't agree. If you have a specific case where Solaris is not
                        performing well on one or two CPUs, please file a bug at
                        http://bugs.opensolaris.org.

                        It is possible some of the performance differences are due to the
                        gcc version being used as Solaris bundles gcc 3.4.3 and other distros
                        may bundle 4.x, but it is much more likely due to the default ABI
                        used by the bundled gcc. "gcc -O" on Solaris will default to ia32/x87,
                        whereas on the other "64 bit" distros tested it will default to amd64.
                        The performance difference can be seen in the two Byte Computational
                        benchmarks on page 7 where Solaris appears to lag: Dhrystone 2
                        (./Run dhry2) and Floating-Point Arithmetic (./Run float). These
                        tests are compiled with "gcc -O" which produces ia32/x87 code.
                        When adding "-m64" which puts Solaris on par with the other distros,
                        the performance jumps quite a bit. Measured on a Intel QX6700,
                        dhry2 goes from 9307771.4 to 13421763.5 and float goes from
                        707932.5 to 1477185.6.

                        The ABI used can make a big difference. Solaris allows you to
                        choose either, but the default for the bundled gcc is still the
                        slower ia32/x87.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          KRAFTMAN, ENERGYMAN

                          As I said earlier, Linux kernel is simple and uses an naive approach. It is easy to modify, whereas the Solaris kernel is complex and mature. You know that an complex construction is more difficult to modify, dont you? And as I said, Linux is found on large clusters because they only do one thing: number crunching and nothing else. It is easy to rip the Linux kernel apart to do that, due to it's naive approach.

                          For Linux bad scaling or not, there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel. Or do you disagree with Linux kernel developer Andrew Morton? No matter what you say, these links on bad Linux scaling will be there. They will not disappear. So if Linux scales so well, surely those links about bad scaling would not exist. On the other hand, I have found NO links about Solaris scaling bad. None. The question is if Linux scales badly (according some companies), not if Solaris scales badly, because it does not.

                          Of course you could rip the Solaris kernel apart to do number crunching, if you only knew it's elaborate and complicated structure. But that is not easy. Linux is good enough for that. But for ordinary OS usage, lots of links says that Linux scales bad.

                          And, "the less the code the better" - is Bull shit??? Erhm. Well, maybe you dont know that, but if you have much code, then there will be lots of potential bugs. It is easier to find bugs in less code than lots of code. And as Andrew Morton says, the Linux kernel is riddled with bugs.




                          But the good thing is that Linux and Solaris are quite similar, theyre both Unix-like. I started with Linux, but found back then, that Linux was quite immature, developed by some finnish teenager. And everything I learnt on Linux, I could immediately use on Solaris. Theyre both "Unix". The step between Windows and Plan9 would be huge. But for me, theyre quite similar. And if I get bored on Solaris, I just switch back to Linux - and everything Ive learnt on Solaris, I have with me to Linux. No loss of learning, nor time. Easy to switch back and forth, both OSes has gcc, gnu, vim/emacs, eclipse, KDE/gnome, vlc player, etc. No big difference. And there is also an Solaris distro which is similar to fedora (?) but with the Solaris kernel, everything else is almost the same.

                          Solaris and Linux share more together, than they differ. Easy to switch between them. No loss of time or learning.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            kebabbert, it is ok. We realize it. You are a Solaris fanboy and no matter what, Solaris will be the greatest kernel for everything from your POV.

                            But your POV and reality don't intersect.
                            If Linux scales badly, why is it found from embedded controllers (where Solaris does not even run) to 512cpu/node machines?
                            Must be the bad scaling.
                            And why are Solaris,hpux,aix installations killed left and right?
                            Again, must be the bad scaling.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              @kebabbert

                              For Linux bad scaling or not, there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel.
                              Solaris is bugfree? There are lot of links saying that Solaris suck on desktop and on servers when compared to Linux.

                              Your theories are amazing . If I find more time I will repeat you more extensively.

                              @energyman,

                              Don't even worry about bad scaling, because it's total bullshit.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I dont really get it guys. I am trying to say that because Linux is available for large clusters, doesnt mean that Linux scales well. It only means that Linux is simple to tailor to that specific purpose. Those large clusters do not run ordinary Linux kernels. For instance, Ive read that Google are using heavily modified Linux. Do you really think that drivers for web cams are included in Googles Linux cluster, do you think it is commodity Linux? Google has lots of good Kernel developers, and theyve also developed their file system. If you think that those large clusters do ordinary OS usage, then you are wrong. They do specific task. Must I say this again?

                                For instance, Linux scaling on 64 CPUs:
                                http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_27

                                Solaris has done that since v2.5.1 on E10k server. Now Solaris is v5.10. Seriously guys, Linux is a young kernel and it can in no way get the maturity as Solaris kernel has. It takes several tries and decades. SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris. A teenager couldnt do this. Dont you understand? Linus is always redesigning everything, a sign of bad design. Everybody knows that SUN has excellent engineers; unique ZFS, unique DTrace, unique Niagara CPU, etc. If they can not match a teenager kernel, then SUN deserves to die. Really.

                                And also, Linux is not compatible from release to release because of changing ABIs. Bad DESIGN. On some major Linux distros, they live 6 months, and then you have to upgrade or you loose support, and compatibility. That is NOT enterprise. SUN guarantees binary backward compatibility way back to Solaris v2.6. That is Enterprise.

                                Maybe you missed what the gurus Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie etc said about the Linux code? That is was naive and flawed. Also, Andrew Morton concurs that the Linux kernel deteriotes:
                                http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/



                                Linux is buggy but Solaris is stable (same hardware):
                                http://lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/...ver-Linux.html


                                Solaris delivers 36% higher performance than Linux says CIO Philadelphia Stock Exchange:
                                http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar...6191p2,00.html


                                Linux sucks big time as a file server:
                                http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...le.php/3745996



                                Linux company hits the boundaries and are forced to switch to Solaris:
                                http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...286507,00.html




                                As long as I see links similar to these everywhere on the internet, I will continue to be a Solaris fanboy. But when I see links that Linux is better than Solaris I will switch back to Linux. I never see such links though. They always talk about cost, and no vendor Lock in. That is the reason they switch to Linux. Not because of Solaris didnt perform. Ah yes, I remember an article where a company switched to Linux and got higher performance. But, when you study that article, they threw out 800 old solaris 8 servers for 2400 modern x86 Linux servers. I would be seriously surprised if they didnt got higher performance. If they had switched to Solaris, they maybe would have got 36% higher performance than Linux.

                                I always support the best technology. For me it doesnt matter who wins, both are Unix. I dont have to relearn. My learning time is not wasted. They are similar.

                                Actually I am becoming interested in Plan9. Seems awesome tech. I am a technology geek. Doesnt matter which OS wins. Us all will reap the fruits!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X