Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: FreeBSD 10.0 Kernel Comes To Debian

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,133

    Default FreeBSD 10.0 Kernel Comes To Debian

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 10.0 Kernel Comes To Debian

    Advancing prudently but quietly within the Debian camp is the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD operating system that pairs Debian's GNU user-land with the FreeBSD kernel. For Debian 8.0 "Jessie" there are continued improvements on this spin that does away with the Linux kernel. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD Jessie/Sid currently defaults to the FreeBSD 9.2.0 kernel, but a FreeBSD 10.0 development kernel has already landed in Debian and is the focus of today's benchmarks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19557

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,107

    Default Linux kernel

    It would have been nice to see the Linux kernel included in the benchmark just for comparison...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    It would have been nice to see the Linux kernel included in the benchmark just for comparison...
    And FreeBSD 10.0 with its normal userland.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Many thanks for this, but please note that kfreebsd-image-10.0-0-amd64 10.0~svn259068-1 still had heavy debugging options enabled. I suspect that was the version used here for benchmarking. The latest kernel build uploaded Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:50:17 UTC turns off these debugging options

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    99

    Default

    The IO tests are favorable for 7.2 since that version lacked the soft-updates journaling that 10.x has. If memory serves me correctly, that was introduced somewhere in 8.x/9.x with soft-updates journaling enabled by default for new file systems.

    http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/r...ed-Softupdates

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nslay View Post
    The IO tests are favorable for 7.2 since that version lacked the soft-updates journaling that 10.x has. If memory serves me correctly, that was introduced somewhere in 8.x/9.x with soft-updates journaling enabled by default for new file systems.

    http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/r...ed-Softupdates
    EDIT:
    FreeBSD 9.0 was the first release to have it:
    http://www5.us.freebsd.org/releases/...tailed.html#FS

    It might also be in later releases of 8.x.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    It would have been nice to see the Linux kernel included in the benchmark just for comparison...
    Quote Originally Posted by dnebdal View Post
    And FreeBSD 10.0 with its normal userland.

    I agree, with all possible combinations of using ZFS, Btrfs and Ext4 (two last ones being Linux-only)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    375

    Default Why?

    Seriously why mix BSD with GNU? Especially considering Debian has a pretty nice Linux system.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nslay View Post
    The IO tests are favorable for 7.2 since that version lacked the soft-updates journaling that 10.x has
    Soft-updates are available since at least 8.x kernels, but the installer for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD didn't enable them yet (FreeBSD itself does, on all except the root filesystem). So that feature was likely not being used in any of these benchmark runs. If enabled, I think performance would actually improve in some cases (as it avoids waiting for each metadata change to be individually written to disk).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CthuIhux View Post
    Which would make the benchmarks more meaningful and would also show why no one needs the kfreebsd-kernel branch. But even by just comparing different versions of debian kfreebsd, everyone can see that kfreebsd is becoming more and more slower with increasing version number.
    While I agree no one needs BSD on Debian, you seem to be highly focused on speed which means little.


    Look at the earlier benckmarks by phoronix, it shows that a full FreeBSD is slower then both kfreebsd and Linux. All the benckmarks say the same thing, Linux is the only sane option.
    Being fast does not make an option sane.


    Which is saner then stock FreeBSD, and other crapBSD who enable debugging in the default release kernels. Not only does this reduce the already pathetic performance but also makes it less secure as hackers can debug the kernel for exact vulnerabilities.
    We can always build our own kernels.


    It’s want you get what a Linux distribution project gets contaminated with midless BSD fanboys. They make the excuse of “Oh hey! We should have more then two kernels cause Linux does not do everything… bullshit bullshit” and then waste huge numbers of developer time and effort into it. Too get the scale of such wastage, consider this: The usage of the kfreebsd branch is only 0.00001% of debian systems, yet the percentage of development effort put into kfreebsd is around 40%. This isn’t help by the fact that the FreeBSD camp refuses to help in the development stating that their “sacred” BSD kernel shouldn’t be mixed with GNU “crap”.
    Well the FreeBSD guys shouldn't be helping because the whole idea seems extremely odd to me. I don't see it as protecting the sacred but rather not getting involved in stupid. I just don't see a rational explanation for this kludge and suspect the BSD developers see it the same way.

    By the way BSD is a good alternative to Linux to have around. I really hate to see the we/they attitude that the two camps have, the more open OS's the better in my mind.

Posting Permissions

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