Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC-BSD 10.0 vs. PC-BSD 9.2 vs. Ubuntu 13.10 Benchmarks

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

  • PC-BSD 10.0 vs. PC-BSD 9.2 vs. Ubuntu 13.10 Benchmarks

    Phoronix: PC-BSD 10.0 vs. PC-BSD 9.2 vs. Ubuntu 13.10 Benchmarks

    After running through some challenges in setting up PC-BSD/FreeBSD 10.0 and its many changes, here are benchmarks of the feature-rich operating system update. Benchmarks were done on the same laptop of PC-BSD 10.0, the former PC-BSD 9.2 release, and Ubuntu 13.10.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19912

  • #2
    All of the operating systems were cleanly installed and left using their default settings/packages, including their default file-systems, default compiler choices, etc, since they are all design choices made by the distribution vendor.
    So, PC-BSD10 comes with the nVidia blob by default? Really?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      Phoronix: PC-BSD 10.0 vs. PC-BSD 9.2 vs. Ubuntu 13.10 Benchmarks

      After running through some challenges in setting up PC-BSD/FreeBSD 10.0 and its many changes, here are benchmarks of the feature-rich operating system update. Benchmarks were done on the same laptop of PC-BSD 10.0, the former PC-BSD 9.2 release, and Ubuntu 13.10.

      http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19912
      Im looking forward to the gcc vs gcc benchmarks. While it's interesting what performance *BSD users can expect using precompiled packages, the full potential of the platform is surely of interest, too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
        So, PC-BSD10 comes with the nVidia blob by default? Really?
        According to Wikipedia, yes.

        Comment


        • #5
          PC-BSD is heavy on features by default.

          Where are the gaming benchmarks?

          Imo, PC-BSD is heavily modified with lot of added "extras", which slow it down. For instance, there is not option to choose UFS as the default filesystem while installation. I think it will perform better without zfs, which is the default.

          So can we have GhostBSD(FreeBSD with GUI) vs Debian vs Ubuntu?

          Thanks!

          Comment


          • #6
            FreeBSD 10 is now defaulting on LLVM/Clang 3.4 and I suspect will move to 3.5 when it's released and FreeBSD 10.1 is released.

            I imagine PC-BSD will follow suit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oleid View Post
              Im looking forward to the gcc vs gcc benchmarks. While it's interesting what performance *BSD users can expect using precompiled packages, the full potential of the platform is surely of interest, too.
              BSD no longer installs GCC by default. It's optional.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                BSD no longer installs GCC by default. It's optional.
                Sure, therefore my posting.

                Comment


                • #9
                  PC-BSD 10 seems to be nearly the same slow ****** as FreeBSD 10.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                    FreeBSD 10 is now defaulting on LLVM/Clang 3.4 and I suspect will move to 3.5 when it's released and FreeBSD 10.1 is released.

                    I imagine PC-BSD will follow suit.
                    Are you use as Clang 3.4 is only in head at the moment?? Stable 10 defaults to Clang 3.3 (http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/10/?view=log)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      while PC-BSD 10.0 was much faster... Too fast, in fact. The reported speeds were past where the Fujitsu HDD is capable of performing so it looks like there's some handling of ZFS in PC-BSD where not all operating may be writing to the disk as handled in previous releases or other changes with syncing to the disk or caching.
                      One way to exceed the write capacity of the HDD is to compress the data before it hits the disk. ZFS supports transparent compression using such algorithms as lzjb, gzip, zle, lz4. The lz4, in particular, is quite a fast algorithm. From the man pages:
                      The lz4 compression algorithm is a high-performance replacement for
                      the lzjb algorithm. It features significantly faster compression and
                      decompression, as well as a moderately higher compression ratio than
                      lzjb, but can only be used on pools with the lz4_compress feature set
                      to enabled. See zpool-features(7) for details on ZFS feature flags
                      and the lz4_compress feature.
                      It can deliver faster results but it's unsafe in the case of power outages or other issues if the disk is left in an awkward state.
                      I am curious as to the basis of this claim, or is this mealy an supposition. ZFS has been specifically designed to handle hardware failure (i.e. a flip bit), and thus I expect a power failure will be easily managed as ZFS, using hashes of all data including meta data, will simply discard the bad data and work off a previous state. I cannot, however, provide any links to substantiate my expectation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                        So, PC-BSD10 comes with the nVidia blob by default? Really?
                        Yep, it sees NVIDIA GPU present and then loads the NVIDIA blob by default; it doesn't have Nouveau, etc.
                        Michael Larabel
                        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Debian GNU/kFreeBSD jessie could be interesting once the FreeBSD 10.0 kernel is ready, due to generally still using GCC 4.8 (same as Ubuntu).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Same outcome as in 2010

                            Same as the results in 2010, Linux still beats crappy BSDs overall.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mzs_47 View Post
                              Where are the gaming benchmarks?

                              Imo, PC-BSD is heavily modified with lot of added "extras", which slow it down. For instance, there is not option to choose UFS as the default filesystem while installation. I think it will perform better without zfs, which is the default.

                              So can we have GhostBSD(FreeBSD with GUI) vs Debian vs Ubuntu?

                              Thanks!
                              PC-BSD is just a FreeBSD with a graphic installer and some extra stuff like their PBI packagement, there is no modifications in kernel.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X