Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eight-Way BSD & Linux OS Comparison

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    I'm not one to criticise, but most would usually base their decision on technical merit, or at the closest to the philosophy point, licensing.
    That is unless you're trying to make a personal freedom box that only contains FOSS software and can only access FOSS repositories, but few to no companies actively go out of their way to make such a setup.
    You missed one of the philosophy points. The reason I switched to Mageia is that its backed by a Non-profit organisation rather than a company, where decision making is out in the open including financial reports. I find this extremely appealing knowing were my distro is heading and a having a REAL community focus rather than the circus that Ubuntu has become lately.

    Comment


    • #17
      One of most annoying misfeatures of Phoronix benchmarks is...

      The absolutely most annoying misfeature of Phoronix benchmarks to the date is that some results could miss some OSes without explanation given.

      Last 5 benchmarks show just 6 competitors instead of 8. So no "8-way". Where all those BSD-based ones? Are they off the track for some reason, or something? And apache benchmark lists just 5 competitors. What happened to another 3? They failed to run Apache? Aw, really? If they are, I think it's worth to mention it, to say the least. Don't you think it's good idea to explain where are all those missing competitors right after appropriate benchmarks? For example I'm curious what BSDs would show in Xonotic on your HD46xx card. Yet there is no results and no any comments why there is no results. Omitting half of benchmark results without explanation is one of biggest misfeatures of those benchmarks to the date.
      Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 05-27-2013, 09:52 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        Why use crappy and insecure (and hence extremely fast) ext4? Would've been nice if at least one Linux used btrfs...
        Filesystems take time to mature and using a filesystem used by most distributions as default makes better when testing across operating systems unless you are running a fs benchmark. Also you might want to provide some references on why you consider Ext4 insecure.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          Filesystems take time to mature and using a filesystem used by most distributions as default makes better when testing across operating systems unless you are running a fs benchmark. Also you might want to provide some references on why you consider Ext4 insecure.
          For example: http://www.unix-experience.fr/2013/2....yC9IKPC0.dpbs

          Comment


          • #20
            Very nice, good to see BSD compared with some Linux distros. Thank you very much for these benchmarks, Michael!

            Surprised to see that Ubuntu is about the same speed, if not faster, then MINT. I'm glad that MINT was included, because lots of people still have the perception that MINT is substantially faster than Ubuntu, but these results prove otherwise. It seems that Ubuntu and Unity (version 7) are not the pile of crap that some people will lead you to believe!

            For the people bitching about the tests used here....why don't YOU do some benchmarking and post the results online if you want to see a specific test or distro? I guess it's easier to bitch rather then doing it yourself though, lol.
            Last edited by enfocomp; 05-27-2013, 10:57 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              regarding ext4 being insecure:

              Originally posted by Sergio View Post
              I don't get it. The link is to some tests that show that performance on a database improves if you turn off barriers on ext4. I don't understand how you can take that fact and use it to conclude that ext4 is inherently unsafe.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                Can you be more specific? I don't see any security issues there. Only a db specific fs benchmark of 3.2 kernel. That isn't worth much really.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by enfocomp View Post
                  Surprised to see that Ubuntu is about the same speed, if not faster, then MINT. I'm glad that MINT was included, because lots of people still have the perception that MINT is substantially faster than Ubuntu, but these results prove otherwise. It seems that Ubuntu and Unity (version 7) are not the pile of crap that some people will lead you to believe!
                  Mint uses the very same software than Ubuntu. The only difference is the GUI: Compiz + Unity on Ubuntu vs Mutter + Gnome-Shell on Mint. The 3D graphics is run in full screen and since Ubuntu fixed their unredirect bug, there is absolutely no chance that there might be any difference between those two. What this benchmark doesn't test, however, is whether Ubuntu feels sluggish or something like that. I don't know, the last one I tested was 12.04.
                  Last edited by oleid; 05-28-2013, 01:27 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    Can you be more specific? I don't see any security issues there. Only a db specific fs benchmark of 3.2 kernel. That isn't worth much really.
                    The only thing he might be referring to is the "nobarrier" option. Yet, even then his statement makes no sense.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by CthuIhux
                      Problem is BSD not just a millisecond slower then Linux, it has proven to be as much as 500 times slower then Linux in many areas not tested in this benchmarks. [...]
                      *yawn*

                      I know that you are the anti-BSD-troll here... but, well.... One whole page of senseless comments about how bad BSD is? Oh come on! That's so boring...
                      At least confirm your statement from above, if you can -- which I doubt --, so that the people here don't fall asleep.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by i386reaper
                        Quite an amusing read, knowing that the page is full of irony...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                          Look at those curves, the test is flawed. BSD on ZFS and Linuxes on EXT4 are completely flat and capped at exactly the same value, this clearly indicates some limitation of his virtualization environment.
                          And then the performance explodes on UFS, Hammer and EXTnobarrier. There must be some disk operation that is capped on the VM that only Ext4 and ZFS use.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by talvik View Post
                            Look at those curves, the test is flawed. BSD on ZFS and Linuxes on EXT4 are completely flat and capped at exactly the same value, this clearly indicates some limitation of his virtualization environment.
                            And then the performance explodes on UFS, Hammer and EXTnobarrier. There must be some disk operation that is capped on the VM that only Ext4 and ZFS use.
                            Benchmarks really shouldn't be preformed in VM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by CthuIhux
                              Quoting Obscure, Untrusted sources written by liars aren't going to make your BSD FUDS more valid.
                              The interesting thing is that those liars he is quoting, didn't actually say anything bad, SECURITY WISE **OR** DATA INTEGRITY WISE about ext4 (some people really should think about terminology before spouting crap though, "insecure" relates to security, not data reliability). The only bad thing the linked page had to say about it was related to PERFORMANCE. The dangerous thing they were talking about was INTENTIONAL DANGER that they introduced themselves, and ACKNOWLEDGED to have introduced themself. That would be the nobarrier option, which is ***NEITHER DEFAULT NOR RECOMMENDED***.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                                Benchmarks really shouldn't be preformed in VM.
                                I tried the same benchmark Ubuntu ext4 in bare metal and got similar results, completely flat and capped performance. While running the resource usage is near zero IO, iowait and CPU.
                                Then I ran wheezy ext4 inside vbox, the performance was 3x to 5x faster than on bare metal. 3x better than the results in that bench.

                                There is clearly a bottleneck somewhere... and it's not in the VM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X