Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux

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

  • Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux

    Phoronix: Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux

    With Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" set to be frozen soon, I took the opportunity to run some new benchmarks of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, the Debian OS variant using the FreeBSD kernel rather than Linux, to compare it to Debian GNU/Linux as well as Ubuntu Linux and PC-BSD/FreeBSD 9.0.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17524

  • #2
    I see a pattern emerging, it seems consistent for BSD to be a little slower than Linux

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by disi View Post
      I see a pattern emerging, it seems consistent for BSD to be a little slower than Linux
      Probably because BSD does not get as much attention and developers when it comes to the parts Michael tested, and thus those parts are not as optimized on the BSD-side as on the Linux-side.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Xake View Post
        Probably because BSD does not get as much attention and developers when it comes to the parts Michael tested, and thus those parts are not as optimized on the BSD-side as on the Linux-side.
        Or the BSD kernel itself is inherently slower than Linux?

        Wouldn't surprise me; there's been a ridiculous amount of investment in Linux lately. Sure, you can't just fix any problem by throwing money at it, but at least in computer science, you can develop new algorithms with really impressive average and worst-case performance. I know they're very careful about algorithm selection and use in the Linux kernel, and that's one of the main areas where Linux beats out pretty much everyone.

        Since these tests mainly benchmark CPU based operations, this comes as no surprise that Linux would be faster. It has an amazing scheduler; BSD doesn't.

        These benchmarks aren't testing I/O performance (disk) or GPU performance, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll bet that Linux is still faster for GPU performance, but it remains to be seen how they'd stack up on the disk I/O front. I'm not so confident that Linux would take the cake there, because ext4 at least is pretty slow in some of the tests we've run on it. It's a pretty lopsided filesystem: some tests, it performs amazingly well; others, it falls down completely. I'd actually want to see how XFS stands up against BSD's filesystem (ZFS, I guess). XFS is not going to blow you away with amazing numbers in any one test, but it's designed so that it pretty much can't get into a horrible worst-case performance scenario... so you aren't going to see it performing at only 10% the speed of ZFS on any of the benchmarks, either. It'll be right up there with it, and occasionally excelling.

        Comment


        • #5
          Linux has no real filesystem, has it?

          I just setup my laptop with ZFSOnLinux as root fs and Gentoo last weekend. Works fine so far except of grub2 didn't like to boot the pool directly, so it needed an extra 100MB boot partition.
          As soon as I decided on a GUI (DE) etc. I'll try to run some benchmarks...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
            Or the BSD kernel itself is inherently slower than Linux?

            Wouldn't surprise me; there's been a ridiculous amount of investment in Linux lately. Sure, you can't just fix any problem by throwing money at it, but at least in computer science, you can develop new algorithms with really impressive average and worst-case performance. I know they're very careful about algorithm selection and use in the Linux kernel, and that's one of the main areas where Linux beats out pretty much everyone.

            Since these tests mainly benchmark CPU based operations, this comes as no surprise that Linux would be faster. It has an amazing scheduler; BSD doesn't.

            These benchmarks aren't testing I/O performance (disk) or GPU performance, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll bet that Linux is still faster for GPU performance, but it remains to be seen how they'd stack up on the disk I/O front. I'm not so confident that Linux would take the cake there, because ext4 at least is pretty slow in some of the tests we've run on it. It's a pretty lopsided filesystem: some tests, it performs amazingly well; others, it falls down completely. I'd actually want to see how XFS stands up against BSD's filesystem (ZFS, I guess). XFS is not going to blow you away with amazing numbers in any one test, but it's designed so that it pretty much can't get into a horrible worst-case performance scenario... so you aren't going to see it performing at only 10% the speed of ZFS on any of the benchmarks, either. It'll be right up there with it, and occasionally excelling.
            clearly the x264 and the ffmpeg tests assuming 100% CPU use at the time tells you all you need to know , Debian GNU/kFreeBSD has some serious bottlenecks that NEED looking at and sorting ASAP.

            x264 and the ffmpeg tests, and even Chris Wilson's SNA hardware-specific optimisations and micro optimizations all show you the massive benefits and the need today to actually benchmark and re-write all your separate code routines and macro's etc to get far better throughput and also remove code cruft on a consistently regular basis, writing "good enough if it works" code is clearly not good enough today, you need to be better and make the time to write quality benchmarked code and actually test it for speed as well as correctness before you commit that latest patch.
            Last edited by popper; 06-25-2012, 08:13 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Games?

              If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ImNtReal View Post
                If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
                <as if it's not abundantly clear: sarcasm>That was a joint conspiracy from Apple and Windows to encourage more BSD development so that they can steal the code and linux will suffer ;-)</sarcasm>

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ImNtReal View Post
                  If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
                  I think that article used proprietary nvidia driver, so the question should be pointed at nvidia.

                  Originally posted by archibald View Post
                  <as if it's not abundantly clear: sarcasm>That was a joint conspiracy from Apple and Windows to encourage more BSD development so that they can steal the code and linux will suffer ;-)</sarcasm>
                  Apple and Microsoft do encourage more BSD development, so they can steal from it.
                  Because BSD license has no freedom protection clause, as in free to do whatever you want.

                  This results in any commercial OS based ON BSD code to be faster, better and more efficient than ANY BSD.

                  Which in turn has three multiple consequences for BSD:
                  - to exist only and only in shadow
                  - to receive just a corn from the table, donated
                  - to be breeding pool for non-free software, just like a dead cow corpse for worms, worms have shown hostility towards open-source software that PROTECTS its freedom.

                  No sarcasm intended.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    4 times - a little slower?

                    Originally posted by disi View Post
                    I see a pattern emerging, it seems consistent for BSD to be a little slower than Linux
                    Oh yeah, it's 1.5-2 times slower in quite many tests and by 4 whole times slower in openssl. "A little slower". Hmmph.

                    Though I'm fail to understand how exactly *BSD guys managed to get such a bad results on same hardware. They managed to both get crapwrecked CPU scheduler and poor syscall servicing times? Broken hardware initialization? Or how they could lose whole 4 times in openssl which is more or less computational test? It does not even requires servicing many syscalls!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      This results in any commercial OS based ON BSD code to be faster, better and more efficient than ANY BSD.

                      Which in turn has three multiple consequences for BSD:
                      - to exist only and only in shadow
                      .
                      ....and that's why Linux beats it. Collaboration and alliances are clearly outrunning competitions and wars.

                      In *BSD world everyone have to reinvent wheel again. Just because competitor wants to slow all "enemies" down and outrun them. So everyone reinvents the wheel. In Linux world, wheel invented once and then similar bunch of people improves it instead of parallel re-invention of the same thing. Seems to give quite an obvious results.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                        Oh yeah, it's 1.5-2 times slower in quite many tests and by 4 whole times slower in openssl. "A little slower". Hmmph.

                        Though I'm fail to understand how exactly *BSD guys managed to get such a bad results on same hardware. They managed to both get crapwrecked CPU scheduler and poor syscall servicing times? Broken hardware initialization? Or how they could lose whole 4 times in openssl which is more or less computational test? It does not even requires servicing many syscalls!
                        The OpenSSL result is particularly interesting. But I couldn't reproduce it on my own (AMD Opteron) systems. Using latest Debian 1.0.1c-3 packages, I ran 'openssl speed' which includes an RSA 4096-bit signing benchmark. The other output from this command (compile options) is helpful to see if trying to compare benchmarks. A 2.6GHz Opteron 285 (twin, dual-core) system with Linux 2.6.32 scored 73.7 sign/s whereas a 2.2GHz Opteron 248 (single, dual-core) GNU/kFreeBSD system (9.0-1-amd64 kernel) scored 62.1 sign/s. I assume the benchmark runs on a single core and thus these results are almost precisely in-line with the relative clock speeds. Certainly no 4x performance reduction seen.

                        I don't know how the benchmark for PTS works, but I'm curious why the test result panel says "OpenSSL 1.0.0e" which is not the (recently) packaged Debian version.

                        Otherwise, I'd guess the cause of this is something hardware-specific, with this particular CPU not reaching full performance under this FreeBSD kernel version. I would check for anything related to CPU scaling, power draw (which is nice to see in many Phoronix benchmarks), or otherwise see if FreeBSD have already made any changes in HEAD / kfreebsd-10 relating to this hardware.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Fedora 17 on a ThinkPad T530 with a Core i7 3820QM (Ivy Bridge):

                          Code:
                          OpenSSL 1.0.0j-fips 10 May 2012
                          built on: Tue May 15 18:29:32 UTC 2012
                          options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) blowfish(idx) 
                          compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4  -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DMD32_REG_T=int -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM
                          The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
                          type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
                          md2               3008.33k     6125.53k     8254.33k     9062.40k     9318.06k
                          mdc2                 0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00 
                          md4              84434.65k   264374.44k   644257.82k   996092.25k  1190922.27k
                          md5              63187.66k   188001.96k   423254.82k   610036.74k   704076.37k
                          hmac(md5)        53563.74k   158385.32k   381761.33k   587953.83k   699139.25k
                          sha1             70823.08k   203082.40k   443047.08k   641391.96k   755614.74k
                          rmd160           43356.44k   106884.32k   195177.22k   248272.40k   268170.58k
                          rc4             413256.97k   705812.38k   816161.71k   857680.14k   867560.11k
                          des cbc          73307.18k    75891.22k    76088.23k    76249.43k    76673.28k
                          des ede3         28634.92k    29143.91k    29111.04k    29096.28k    29140.51k
                          idea cbc             0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00 
                          seed cbc         81854.90k    81229.66k    81740.80k    81892.94k    81685.16k
                          rc2 cbc          50009.57k    50417.49k    50973.62k    50972.67k    51217.81k
                          rc5-32/12 cbc        0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00 
                          blowfish cbc    131123.55k   138414.21k   140498.02k   140976.13k   141442.14k
                          cast cbc        115903.82k   122357.83k   123058.09k   124024.55k   124466.52k
                          aes-128 cbc     131762.18k   144214.26k   146054.66k   147490.13k   148666.99k
                          aes-192 cbc     111920.14k   119723.99k   122373.22k   123111.08k   123778.65k
                          aes-256 cbc      97196.49k   103389.61k   104866.25k   105222.14k   105835.71k
                          camellia-128 cbc   103898.70k   158217.12k   178736.81k   185166.26k   185305.77k
                          camellia-192 cbc    89495.65k   122895.72k   134847.02k   138753.37k   140587.32k
                          camellia-256 cbc    89182.87k   122451.71k   133507.50k   137959.17k   140557.19k
                          sha256           53759.63k   120741.07k   207696.30k   260242.09k   280949.98k
                          sha512           42240.75k   170258.99k   260882.09k   367734.44k   426915.53k
                          whirlpool        25523.32k    54972.21k    91044.18k   108745.39k   115726.38k
                          aes-128 ige     134028.59k   138739.73k   140249.64k   140259.33k   140195.16k
                          aes-192 ige     112835.38k   116868.29k   118129.44k   118033.41k   118226.94k
                          aes-256 ige      98245.07k   101325.87k   102308.39k   102273.02k   102643.84k
                                            sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
                          rsa  512 bits 0.000047s 0.000004s  21073.7 241610.2
                          rsa 1024 bits 0.000233s 0.000013s   4291.7  79594.7
                          rsa 2048 bits 0.001526s 0.000044s    655.3  22677.0
                          rsa 4096 bits 0.010720s 0.000177s     93.3   5659.5
                                            sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
                          dsa  512 bits 0.000052s 0.000050s  19249.6  20171.6
                          dsa 1024 bits 0.000133s 0.000147s   7533.8   6822.4
                          dsa 2048 bits 0.000441s 0.000515s   2268.3   1942.4

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ImNtReal View Post
                            If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
                            It was explained. BSD was running KDE with suspended compositions and was tested against Ubuntu which is using compiz and has this option disabled. So it was KDE that was faster than compiz in this tests.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by disi View Post
                              Linux has no real filesystem, has it?

                              I just setup my laptop with ZFSOnLinux as root fs and Gentoo last weekend. Works fine so far except of grub2 didn't like to boot the pool directly, so it needed an extra 100MB boot partition.
                              As soon as I decided on a GUI (DE) etc. I'll try to run some benchmarks...
                              Damn troll. It has many real file systems unlike others. Who cares about your configuration?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X