Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    107

    Default

    good test. i was curious on this. i tryed kfreebsd then, but it was very broken for me. but expected more difference for linux.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote 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.
    I don't care for kfreebsd, but as long as it gives a reason to stick with sysvinit, I'm all for it.
    init should be init, that's it.
    I don't wan't chroot upgrades failing, I don't want to recompile init if early stages need fixing, I don't need snapshotting, and DISK TOOLS DON"T BELONG IN INIT!
    I can get 32 MB used with sysvinit and a ton of services, on debian; and chroot stuff works without any magic. I can't tell how a comparable systemd setup would be, but it beats Upstart, and systemd seems to have more of that garbage.

    By the way, kfreebsd is not "experimental". It's officially supported.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibidem View Post
    I don't care for kfreebsd, but as long as it gives a reason to stick with sysvinit, I'm all for it.
    init should be init, that's it.
    I don't wan't chroot upgrades failing, I don't want to recompile init if early stages need fixing, I don't need snapshotting, and DISK TOOLS DON"T BELONG IN INIT!
    I can get 32 MB used with sysvinit and a ton of services, on debian; and chroot stuff works without any magic. I can't tell how a comparable systemd setup would be, but it beats Upstart, and systemd seems to have more of that garbage.

    By the way, kfreebsd is not "experimental". It's officially supported.
    sysvinit is damn slow and terribly simple crap that should die long ago. It does nothing, but starts services and doesn't give you any power to control them. If you want to stick in 80's you're free to do so. That's the problem kfreebsd is officially supported in Debian and I hope it will be dropped soon. It's the same joke as sysvinit.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Interesting conversation that was going on here. I for one obviously only saw it now.

    Personally, I like kFreeBSD, it opens up a few choices for the Linux world. At the same time I wasn't aware that it was keeping Debian from going with systemd ect, but I must say, after playing with Debian/kFreeBSD for a while, I perrsonally am falling in love and will probably switch a few of my pcs at home over.

    To add to that, I like seeing these benchmarks, they are informative to me at least, who doesn't have time to do them myself.

  5. #25

    Default

    There is a bad interaction between the FreeBSD kernel and GCC 4.4 and later. It forced the Debian developers to compile the FreeBSD kernel with -O1, which gives Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a handicap.

    We had the same issue in Gentoo FreeBSD. We partially solved it by adopting Debian's patch and modifying it to support -O2 with Clang. Here is the Gentoo bug:

    https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408019

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •