Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks

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

  • #46
    have you even read your links?

    Because it does not look like you did.
    From the kernelnewbies article:
    2.6.27, thanks to some rules on how the page cache can be used and the usage of RCU, the page cache will be able to do lookups (ie., "read" the page cache) without needing to take the mapping lock, and hence improving scalability. But it will only be noticeable on systems with lots of cpus (page fault speedup of 250x on a 64 way system have been measured).

    that doesn't mean that linux didn't scale to 64 or beyond. It means that the new code has a 250x speedup on 64way sytems when it comes to page faults.

    After that I didn't even bother to read the rest. Because I am pretty sure you didn't either.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.
      In my opinion naive approach is what you call complex and mature. It's so stupid to keep with old crap then to make new, better design. Some day there will be nothing left then to rewrite some parts of your favorite system (maybe it's just happening, who knows?). You can say that DOS is mature, so why not just polish it then make something better? And simple is better. As you said Linux kernel is more simple.

      ...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.
      It depends on who is testing. As I mentioned before some idiots don't know how to properly setup Linux system for such benchmarks and that's why those links exist (other ...people are basing on them).

      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.
      Stop reading bullshit. I saw great test some time before. Bsd user (that's why it's great benchmark, because it wasn't made by Linux fanboy etc.) benchmarked Linux and FreeBSD performance in MySQL. First time Linux scaled badly, but guy replaced one library and everything was ok. I'll give you link if I find.

      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.
      Nope. I said that bullshit is what you said in previous post. On Linux works much more people then on Solaris, so they can easily find potential bugs. Btw. you just use some part of Linux kernel don't you? Devs pay great attention to core Linux kernel parts. You don't use many drivers and features which are in the kernel and can be potentially buggy.

      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?
      I said you before about scaling? Must I repeat? :>



      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.
      Energy man already answered you. Everybody knows that Solaris is loosing it's market share. Only ZFS and DTrace keep it still alive.

      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.
      You said that redesigning is bad.

      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.
      There are companies which gave you support for years. Linux is not compatible with what?

      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/
      What gurus? Don't base your suggestions on such idiotic opinions. Find out yourself. And Adrew was talking about -mm tree. I'd love to hear objective opinions other system devs.



      Linux is buggy but Solaris is stable (same hardware)
      Solaris is buggy, every system is buggy and Linux is stable. Guess what system has highest uptime? :>


      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!
      I just suggest you to find some more objective benchmarks and to replace that slow crap to Linux. I never saw Solaris faster then Linux. You can even feel it yourself. Try them on desktop. Look for DNS, MySQL tests etc.

      EDIT:

      And you're just attacking Linux. What it gives you? Psychical comfort?
      Last edited by kraftman; 12-03-2008, 01:54 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Kraftman,

        You know, it would be nice if you backed up your statements with some links? So far, your statements have been about your opinion with no hard facts. How you wish things would be. To me, opionions doesnt really matter. As long as I see hard links from companies complaining about Linux bad scaling, beeing unstable, etc - your opinions doesnt really matter. Ive presented links.

        Seriously, I support the best technology and if you can present evidence that Linux is better I will switch back to Linux. I am a tech geek. This far, everywhere Solaris and Linux is compared, Solaris is always the most stable, has higher performance, etc on the internet.

        It doesnt really matter if Solaris is dying or not to me, I only use the best technology. Why use inferior, simpler technology? I could use Windows instead. But it seems that Solaris is gaining more and more ground actually. That is maybe the reason why Linux people always attack Solaris. "Is solaris on it's death bed?", "Solaris should die", etc. I wonder why they do that. Does it give them psychic comfort? But hey, they attack everyone else too; "openbsd developers are masturbating monkeys" etc

        In concluding, I would like to say it's been nice to read your opinions. But please present some facts instead.






        Energyman,
        Nice that youve read at least one of my links. That link you cite, shows that Linux had really bad scaling and now it is catching up. In other words, that link is a testimony that Linux were 250 times slower earlier on 64 cpus. You dont see a contradiction here? You state that Linux scales well, but it was 250 times slower than it should have been. To me, thats a sign of bad design. But I understand if you dont agree with that.

        (come on, 250 times slower??? how could Linux be so bad in that aspect???)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
          Kraftman,

          You know, it would be nice if you backed up your statements with some links? So far, your statements have been about your opinion with no hard facts. How you wish things would be. To me, opionions doesnt really matter. As long as I see hard links from companies complaining about Linux bad scaling, beeing unstable, etc - your opinions doesnt really matter. Ive presented links.
          You backed up your statements only on such tales of mystical links? Linux bad scaling and unstable. Do you have personal experience with this? What companies? Sun Microsystems? Oh, maybe Google or Amazon. Wait, hundreds of porn sites. Which of them uses Solaris?

          Seriously, I support the best technology and if you can present evidence that Linux is better I will switch back to Linux. I am a tech geek. This far, everywhere Solaris and Linux is compared, Solaris is always the most stable, has higher performance, etc on the internet.
          I saw something different, but it doesn't matter. You are always the smartest, the coolest and you know always everything when compared to others. Better stick with Solaris, seriously.

          It doesnt really matter if Solaris is dying or not to me, I only use the best technology. Why use inferior, simpler technology? I could use Windows instead. But it seems that Solaris is gaining more and more ground actually. That is maybe the reason why Linux people always attack Solaris. "Is solaris on it's death bed?", "Solaris should die", etc. I wonder why they do that. Does it give them psychic comfort? But hey, they attack everyone else too; "openbsd developers are masturbating monkeys" etc
          If you consider that I meant Windows when I said about simplicity I recommend you to use PS3 - it's really simple. Why do you turn everything inside out? You attacked Linux here.

          Nice that youve read at least one of my links. That link you cite, shows that Linux had really bad scaling and now it is catching up. In other words, that link is a testimony that Linux were 250 times slower earlier on 64 cpus. You dont see a contradiction here? You state that Linux scales well, but it was 250 times slower than it should have been. To me, thats a sign of bad design. But I understand if you dont agree with that.

          (come on, 250 times slower??? how could Linux be so bad in that aspect???)
          Maybe someone who did previous tests was 250 times dumber? Or Linux was 250 times slower then new Linux, but still faster then Solaris?

          Comment


          • #50
            you provided some links you didn't read yourself.
            Then you provided some pro-Solaris success stories. But if you look at Redhat's or Novell's sites you will see success stories the other way round en masse.

            There are two very simple facts:
            a) UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) is loosing marketshare to Linux fast.
            b) The Top 500 supercomputers are dominated by linux. Second place with 400 installations less, AIX. Solaris. 1. Some years ago, Solaris was the dominator.
            c) yes R&K critized Linux. But they critized a lot over the years.

            Comment


            • #51
              KRAFTMAN,

              My links are not from SUN website, they are from other independent web sites. Ive shown you several links about bad scaling and bad code Linux has. One such link was from a Linux kernel developer Andrew Morton himself, and another link was from a linux site, stating that Linux was 250 times slower on 64 cpus. But I understand if you think my links are retarded and doesnt count. It is ok if you think I am a Solaris fanatic with no evidence to back up my preference for Solaris.



              I think it is interesting that you state that you "I saw something different [about Solaris being faster than Linux], but it doesn't matter." How did you, and when did you compare Solaris to Linux? I myself ran Linux for several years, and have now switched to Solaris. Maybe I have more experience than you have, of both OSes?



              Anyway, Linux never let me down.Everything I wanted to do, Linux did. You know, I dont have a massive computing cluster at home to stress Linux with. For a single person Linux will do fine. The problem is that it doesnt cut it for big loads, as you can see from some independent company blogs Ive posted. So what happens if I know Linux, and then my company grows and we have to switch to Solaris? Then I am already familiar to Solaris!



              But actually, it doesnt really matter. If Solaris dies, I just switch back to Linux. Both are "Unix". And I will be a better Unix admin than you, because Ive had experience from two systems. It's like when you program; if you know one programming language, or if you know two - then you will learn new techniques and methods which gives you a better understanding of programming in general. The gurus says that a good programmer should now several programming languages; C, Java, lisp, etc to broaden the knowledge.




              Seriously, if Linux were better I would switch back. I mean it. But as of now, Solaris is simply the best OS out there, in my opinion. But if I see links and articles stating otherwise, I will switch again. Unix or Unix, same-same but different. All my knowledge is not wasted. I have learnt Unix and can use it on Linux or Solaris. gnu is the same on both, so is Vi/emacs, gcc, eclipse, X11, Java, etc. Please provide some links saying that Solaris is unstable and scales badly - in comparison with Linux.



              I love the fact that one company migrated 251 Dell 2950 Linux servers each having 2 cpus, that ran 700 instances of MySQL down to... 24 SUN Niagara T5440 Solaris servers! Wow. That's really cool tech! I admire the best tech. Be it Unix or Unix. Doesnt matter.
              http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/my...n_on_sun_sparc

              I also like that 3 IBM AIX servers with 12 Power6 CPUs at 4.7 GHz got 7000 SIEBEL benchmarks. Whereas one SUN T5440 machine with 4 Niagara 1.4 GHz CPUs gets 14000 SIEBEL benchmarks. IBM had in total 56.4 GHz worth of cpu and got 7000 SIEBEL. SUN had in total 5.6 GHz and got 14000 SIEBEL. Now, THAT is cool! Dont you think that? You dont admire cool ground breaking tech? Here are collected links to Oracle web site with the formal papers with benchmarks:
              http://blogs.sun.com/mandalika/entry/siebel_8_0_on_sun






              ENERGYMAN,
              The links Ive provided earlier are not from SUN site. They are from independent sites. If I need an opinion if Solaris is dying, I will surely not ask some Linux CEO that talks in his own favour.

              1. So what? If Solaris dies, I switch back to Linux. But, SUN niagara servers is selling for $1bn USD and it increases 80% each 4 month period. There are lots of smaller Linux companies that get fed up with all the Linux hassle and instability and turns to Solaris. As you can see from my links Ive posted.

              2. Cool. But as I said, that is not commodity Linux. It is easy to rip out everything from Linux and tailor it for one purpose. That could also be done with Solaris, but it is more difficult. The Solaris kernel is very elaborate and complicated. And, Solaris scales better. It is not 250 times slower on 64 cpus. (Come on, if that is not bad scaling, then when do you see bad scaling?)

              3. Wow. So when someone critize Linux, it is not OK? Linux people can rightly attack Solaris and everyone else, but Linux should not accept any critiscm? Hmm.. What is that called? Cant remember the word...

              Comment


              • #52
                Niagara.. you mentioned 'numbercrunshing' earlier. Think about it. And think about the fact, that no big iron uses niagara... it is good at doing lots of very simple stuff in parallel. Sadly not everything is simple.

                Comment


                • #53
                  @kebabbert

                  What are you trying to proof? You're fanboy in my opinion. You're repeating same bullshit all the time and if you know such revelations as you already said post a new thread and Solaris fanboys will feel there like in Heaven. I don't believe that you used Linux on desktop, switched to Solaris and now you say that Solaris is faster. It's slow as dog on desktop in comparison to Linux. I probably should fill bug report as someone mentioned before, but I'm completely uninterested what's going around this great and very unappreciated system.

                  I realized that benchmarks in many cases are meaningless so you don't have to use Google, which is based on Linux, too much. It can be very frustrating to you.

                  Btw. Playing in posts is funny only for short time.
                  Last edited by kraftman; 12-03-2008, 04:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    http://bulk.fefe.de/lk2006/bench.html

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by energyman View Post
                      Niagara.. you mentioned 'numbercrunshing' earlier. Think about it. And think about the fact, that no big iron uses niagara... it is good at doing lots of very simple stuff in parallel. Sadly not everything is simple.
                      Actually, I dont understand your post. So what about number crunching and Niagara? Do you mean that Niagara sucks at nr crunching, or that it is good? So what should I think about it? I dont understand. FYI, The 1.4 GHz Niagara has the world record in both SPECint2006 and SPECfp2006, faster than, for instance, the previous record keeper IBM Power6 4.7 GHz on number crunching:
                      http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/tags/specint_rate2006



                      And "no big iron uses niagara", so what? Niagara is good enough. In fact, Ive heard of some company that migrated their entire IBM mainframe to one T5440 SUN with 4 Niagara cpus. Cant remember where. And STRATA, Europes largest web provider handles up to one billion email/day, migrated their entire Back End to one T5440 with lots of cpu power over. There are lots of similar stories, companies migrate 40 racks with 64 AMD cpus to one SUN T5440 and cut power drastically. And sys admins. And spare parts. etc. And the T5440 is cheap, it costs like 82 000 USD and one similar configured IBM Power6 server costs 412 000 USD. And the T5440 is much faster also.



                      Yes, Niagara is only good at doing simple stuff, such as running Oracle and SAP (T5440 holds world records in both. Oracle benchmarks, I have linked to. SAP benchmarks: http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/tags/sap ), MySQL I have linked to, etc etc. And it is the world's fastest cpu at number crunching, which I have shown above. Yes, Niagara is only good at simple stuff, that has no use at companies. Totally worth less CPU, I concur.



                      The Niagara CPU is unique. Yes, totally unique. Studies from Intel corp show that even under full load a typical x86 server CPU idles 50-60% of the time. This is due to cache misses which all CPU architectures suffer from; they must wait for data to arrive from RAM. That is also why modern CPUs have larger cache, complex prefetch logic, etc. However, CPUs belonging to the T1 family do not suffer from this problem. Instead, as soon a T1 thread stalls due to a cache miss, the T1 switches thread in 1 clock cycle and continues to do work while waiting for the data. Typically on a modern CPU, a thread switch takes a much longer time than 1 clock cycle. This is the reason a T1 can work 95% of the time and only waits for data 5% of the time. Compare this to an x86 CPU at 3 GHz. Because the x86 CPU can only work at half speed due to cache misses, it can be compared to a 1.5 GHz CPU working at full speed. However, one of the T1 threads can compare to an Intel Pentium 3 CPU at 1 GHz in terms of computing power.

                      Also, in best case scenario, the Niagara can run all 8 threads in one core, simultaneously. That happens when they are in different stage in the cpu pipeline. Not so an Intel x86, a thread occupies the entire core.

                      You see now, that the Niagara is totally unique? And ZFS. And DTrace. DTrace is pure magic. (DTrace allows the finding of Solaris kernel bugs that are impossible to find otherwise. DTrace only makes Solaris more stable and scalable). And Zones. And Crossbow. etc etc I could go on and on. Seriously. I really really do think SUN has excellent engineers. Maybe you Linux guys dont think so, but that is ok. Maybe you linux guys thinks that ZFS sucks. And DTrace. And Niagara. etc. That is ok. Anyway, all is Unix. If SUN dies, I switch back to Linux. Nothing is lost. Unix is Unix.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        @kebabbert

                        What are you trying to proof? You're fanboy in my opinion. You're repeating same bullshit all the time and if you know such revelations as you already said post a new thread and Solaris fanboys will feel there like in Heaven. I don't believe that you used Linux on desktop, switched to Solaris and now you say that Solaris is faster. It's slow as dog on desktop in comparison to Linux. I probably should fill bug report as someone mentioned before, but I'm completely uninterested what's going around this great and very unappreciated system.

                        I realized that benchmarks in many cases are meaningless so you don't have to use Google, which is based on Linux, too much. It can be very frustrating to you.
                        I dont say that Solaris is faster than Linux on my hardware. But I can repeat again: I say that Linux did suffice, it did everything for me, and well. I said that Linux doesnt cut it for big loads. Ive personally never had any such load. I told you. Why do I always have to repeat myself?



                        And, Google is running an modified Linux kernel. Not commodity Linux. Google started as a small company. They use lots of cheap servers with low utilization, because Linux becomes unstable at high utilization. I know that Google has been examining Solaris. If Google could run servers on 100% load with Solaris, than 50% load with Linux - Google would save lots of energy.
                        Last edited by kebabbert; 12-03-2008, 04:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          no, you came up all the time that linux is only good for numbercrunshing and nothing else. Ignoring the fact that linux kills Solaris off everywhere.
                          And then you bring up Niagara - which is a chip designed for multi threaded numbercrunshing. It is good at that - and nothing else.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by energyman View Post
                            Wow! One benchmark at last! Thanx for that.

                            The only problem is that they are using some odd home brewn distro of Solaris, v0.51 or so. I think that benchmark is unfair. We could bench Solaris 10 against Ubuntu v0.51 and see who would win?

                            A better link, please. Remember, if you present good enough evidence that Linux is the best, I will switch. I only use the best tech. Why use something inferior?





                            NGRGYMAN,
                            Yes, the CHIP is good for number crunching. But Solaris is something else. The OS and the chip are totally different things. The chip may be good, but the OS suck, or vice versa.

                            And it is a fact that the best tech doesnt always win. Remember VHS vs Betamax? And Windows has 90% market share, and that tech sucks big time. The best tech doesnt win always.
                            Last edited by kebabbert; 12-03-2008, 04:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              he took the two leading opensolaris distributions. If you want to, I am sure that Felix v. L. would gladhly accept a big box with Solaris whatever installed on it - as long as he has not to pay for it,

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                                I dont say that Solaris is faster than Linux on my hardware. But I can repeat again: I say that Linux did suffice, it did everything for me, and well. I said that Linux doesnt cut it for big loads. Ive personally never had any such load. I told you. Why do I always have to repeat myself?



                                And, Google is running an modified Linux kernel. Not commodity Linux. Google started as a small company. They use lots of cheap servers with low utilization, because Linux becomes unstable at high utilization. I know that Google has been examining Solaris. If Google could run servers on 100% load with Solaris, than 50% load with Linux - Google would save lots of energy.
                                If Solaris could compare with Linux in big loads Google and many other companies would just use it. They don't base on crap what you gave here. In my opinion your only intention is to make flame. If Solaris isn't faster then Linux on your box why you use it? Because of fanaticism?


                                If you're interested:

                                http://www.dbazine.com/olc/olc-articles/ault8

                                and another one using 2.4.x kernel:

                                http://www.osnews.com/story/4867/Sun...ck-down/page3/
                                Last edited by kraftman; 12-04-2008, 01:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X