Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

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

  • Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

    Phoronix: Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

    The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project has been quite interesting as one of the official Debian operating system ports. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD pairs the FreeBSD kernel with the Debian GNU user-land so that users can enjoy their traditional Debian applications while taking advantage of the FreeBSD kernel. With the recently released FreeBSD 9.0 kernel having worked its way into Debian Wheezy, how is the FreeBSD 9.0 kernel performance compared to the Linux 3.2 kernel? This article provides those benchmarks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17120

  • #2
    Some analysis as to what caused those huge differences in performance would be welcome. Especially as, to my knowledge, several of those were just CPU-bound tests that should have relatively little impact from the kernel in use, unless there's something pathologically wrong with the CPU scheduler or memory manager subsystems of the kernel. I mean, I'd expect there to potentially be huge differences in I/O throughput or something that's heavily dependent on the kernel's algorithms of choice, but not for something that is mostly a test of the system's hardware.

    Comment


    • #3
      Apples to oranges

      Can you also perform the tests on identical hardware?

      Comment


      • #4
        Code:
        Processor:
         - Debian kFreeBSD:	AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
         - Debian Linux:	2 x AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
        Really? Is this right? Am I seeing things?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BagOfMostlyWater View Post
          Can you also perform the tests on identical hardware?

          The tests were done on the same hardware.... There's reporting differences between the kernels.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nobu View Post
            Code:
            Processor:
             - Debian kFreeBSD:    AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
             - Debian Linux:    2 x AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
            Really? Is this right? Am I seeing things?

            Ditto. Same hardware, but Debian GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't properly expose multiple sockets for PTS to read.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              Ditto. Same hardware, but Debian GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't properly expose multiple sockets for PTS to read.
              Sounds like a bug or something not properly implemented in the kFreeBSD kernel..perhaps a good idea to report this upstream and see what response you get?

              Comment


              • #8
                Phew, I was starting to think Michael had gotten some serious server hardware...as if eight cores isn't already pretty serious.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I hope Debian will get rid of kfreebsd kernel and simply focus on Linux and systemd, so it will be easier to Ubuntu to switch. The benchmark results are great. It's good to see the same GCC version was used.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                    Some analysis as to what caused those huge differences in performance would be welcome. Especially as, to my knowledge, several of those were just CPU-bound tests that should have relatively little impact from the kernel in use, unless there's something pathologically wrong with the CPU scheduler or memory manager subsystems of the kernel. I mean, I'd expect there to potentially be huge differences in I/O throughput or something that's heavily dependent on the kernel's algorithms of choice, but not for something that is mostly a test of the system's hardware.
                    I doubt soft updates was enabled on UFS. Also, I suspect that the NAS parallel benchmarks are likely showing some sort of configuration issue. CG.B for instance is exactly half that of Linux. Nobu's comment about the kFreeBSD system having only 1 socket available to it could be correct.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting benchmarks in itself but it feels meaningless:
                      Originally posted by BagOfMostlyWater View Post
                      Can you also perform the tests on identical hardware?
                      and identical filesystems? Not all the benchmarks appear to be a kernel-only test or am I wrong?

                      Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                      Some analysis as to what caused those huge differences in performance would be welcome.
                      Yes. I get it, the KFreeBSD kernel is generally slower but occasionally remarkably faster. Why? Were these results expected? Can you make the data accessible to noobs?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Different hardware? sorry, but this can't be called a benchmark ... or at least, you can't compare both stuff, *again*, when it came to comparing *BSD to a Linux, you did a bad developed benchmark.
                        Well, at least you didn't make the "mistake" of comparing ZFS vs ext4, and instead used ufs2
                        Last edited by vertexSymphony; 03-07-2012, 12:47 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michael View Post
                          Ditto. Same hardware, but Debian GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't properly expose multiple sockets for PTS to read.

                          Whoops, sorry then ... I remember your postings in the mailing lists ( was it freebsd-hackers or freebsd-current? ) asking about a proper way of reading hardware data.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            I hope Debian will get rid of kfreebsd kernel and simply focus on Linux and systemd, so it will be easier to Ubuntu to switch. The benchmark results are great. It's good to see the same GCC version was used.
                            And why would Debian care about how easy or hard is it for Ubuntu?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                              And why would Debian care about how easy or hard is it for Ubuntu?
                              Maybe because Ubuntu propagates Debian's way when comes to few things like apt, debs. Ubuntu and Linux kernel (and kernel related things like systemd) are far more important for Debian than bsd crap. I don't like Debian cares about crap like kfreebsd and llvm as GCC replacement which just makes things more complicated. They're free to do what they want, but they do stupid things sometimes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X