Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Distributions vs. BSDs With netperf & iperf3 Network Performance

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    And enterprise computing is mostly using 1. XFS.

    Having bunch'a stuff working half-assed, accompanied by "works in case of..", "when you have.." and so forth is not very impressive. Just bragging rights.
    To be fair, enterprise computing is not really using "XFS". It uses RHEL which incidentally happens to use XFS. How many companies really know or care about the FS, let alone compare the various options and choose one based on some objective criteria? Companies pick an OS based on support, software availability, hardware certification and, in some cases, overall performance. Heck, an awful lot of enterprise computing is running on NTFS, but that definitely doesn't imply that it's a great filesystem. Which XFS is, by the way.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

      Two questions:

      1. Was firewall enabled in benchmarked systems? (in Linux distributions it's usually enabled, but it's probably not enabled by default in FreeBSD).
      Fedora - Yes
      Ubuntu - No (apparently doesn't even have the kernel module installed by default)
      If he was just testing the default install of FreeBSD the firewall (or rather your choice of PF, IPFW, or IPFilter) would be disabled

      I don't have CentOS or debian installed in a VM ready at hand to test them

      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
      2. Does it matter?
      Going by the benchmarks In some cases yes, in others no

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by jacob View Post

        To be fair, enterprise computing is not really using "XFS". It uses RHEL which incidentally happens to use XFS. How many companies really know or care about the FS, let alone compare the various options and choose one based on some objective criteria? Companies pick an OS based on support, software availability, hardware certification and, in some cases, overall performance. Heck, an awful lot of enterprise computing is running on NTFS, but that definitely doesn't imply that it's a great filesystem. Which XFS is, by the way.
        I seriously doubt there is something "incidental" in RHEL using XFS. They must have tested the fuck out of various file systems and picked file system according to test results and not by simply tossing a coin. Even Novell now recommends using XFS for data partitions on it's SLES.

        Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post

        Just one look at OpenBSD-derived PF vs the Linux iptables and you can see an emphasis on clarity and user friendliness over feature-itis.
        I'm sort of starting to like NetBSD's npf as well. One dude has done amazing amount of work in a ~5 years..
        Last edited by aht0; 12-07-2016, 06:58 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by aht0 View Post

          I seriously doubt there is something "incidental" in RHEL using XFS. They must have tested the fuck out of various file systems and picked file system according to test results and not by simply tossing a coin. Even Novell now recommends using XFS for data partitions on it's SLES.


          I'm sort of starting to like NetBSD's npf as well. One dude has done amazing amount of work in a ~5 years..
          XFS was made by SGI and for its time SGI did some innovative work with its stuff. In my experience a properly configured XFS or even JFS system can smash an ext4 out of the water.

          I've only used NetBSD in mostly embedded ARM boards and the occasional ancient desktop/laptop, hardly a good place to test their firewall, however, I imagine it's good. I just need to see if their network code is giant locked because if it is, then that isn't good.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by aht0 View Post

            I seriously doubt there is something "incidental" in RHEL using XFS. They must have tested the fuck out of various file systems and picked file system according to test results and not by simply tossing a coin. Even Novell now recommends using XFS for data partitions on it's SLES.
            You misunderstood my post. I don't doubt that Red Hat did their homework. My point is that enterprises don't give a toss about the technicalities, pros and cons of the various filesystems. They use whatever the OS vendor supplies and if Red Hat selected FAT16 as their FS of choice, then business computing would run on that. Thus claiming that XFS is somehow acclaimed by enterprise computing is meaningless, like bragging that Fortune 500 companies embrace the Linux syscalls ABI.

            Comment


            • #26
              Michael is there any chance of some 10gbit networking tests? 1gbit networking tests would be the equivalent of testing ioquake3 0.8.5

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                Michael is there any chance of some 10gbit networking tests? 1gbit networking tests would be the equivalent of testing ioquake3 0.8.5
                Definitely, soon as someone/company sponsors the hardware for such tests... Until then, I don't have such equipment...

                Edit: obviously if I had such hardware would have provided some tests in the first place.
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #28
                  I believe there is a bug with the phoronix iperf3/UDP bench on FreeBSD.
                  From a small 4 cores ATOM C2558 with Intel i350 gigabit NIC:

                  Code:
                  [[email protected]]~# iperf3 -c 198.19.0.203 -u -p 9090 -b 1G -P 5
                  Connecting to host 198.19.0.203, port 9090
                  [  4] local 198.19.0.209 port 42742 connected to 198.19.0.203 port 9090
                  [  6] local 198.19.0.209 port 48170 connected to 198.19.0.203 port 9090
                  [  8] local 198.19.0.209 port 52621 connected to 198.19.0.203 port 9090
                  [ 10] local 198.19.0.209 port 46259 connected to 198.19.0.203 port 9090
                  [ 12] local 198.19.0.209 port 12809 connected to 198.19.0.203 port 9090
                  [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Total Datagrams
                  [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  21.6 MBytes   182 Mbits/sec  23909
                  [  6]   0.00-1.00   sec  21.3 MBytes   179 Mbits/sec  2770
                  [  8]   0.00-1.00   sec  21.3 MBytes   179 Mbits/sec  2732
                  [ 10]   0.00-1.00   sec  21.3 MBytes   179 Mbits/sec  2732
                  [ 12]   0.00-1.00   sec  21.3 MBytes   179 Mbits/sec  2732
                  [SUM]   0.00-1.00   sec   107 MBytes   898 Mbits/sec  34875
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  23.0 MBytes   193 Mbits/sec  27529
                  [  6]   1.00-2.00   sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2944
                  [  8]   1.00-2.00   sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [ 10]   1.00-2.00   sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [ 12]   1.00-2.00   sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [SUM]   1.00-2.00   sec   114 MBytes   953 Mbits/sec  39176
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  23.0 MBytes   193 Mbits/sec  27531
                  [  6]   2.00-3.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2942
                  [  8]   2.00-3.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [ 10]   2.00-3.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [ 12]   2.00-3.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [SUM]   2.00-3.00   sec   114 MBytes   953 Mbits/sec  39170
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  23.1 MBytes   194 Mbits/sec  27437
                  [  6]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2962
                  [  8]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2919
                  [ 10]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2919
                  [ 12]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2919
                  [SUM]   3.00-4.00   sec   114 MBytes   959 Mbits/sec  39156
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  23.2 MBytes   194 Mbits/sec  27321
                  [  6]   4.00-5.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2967
                  [  8]   4.00-5.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 10]   4.00-5.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 12]   4.00-5.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [SUM]   4.00-5.00   sec   115 MBytes   961 Mbits/sec  39060
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  23.2 MBytes   194 Mbits/sec  27557
                  [  6]   5.00-6.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2967
                  [  8]   5.00-6.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 10]   5.00-6.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 12]   5.00-6.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [SUM]   5.00-6.00   sec   115 MBytes   961 Mbits/sec  39296
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  23.2 MBytes   194 Mbits/sec  27363
                  [  6]   6.00-7.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2967
                  [  8]   6.00-7.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 10]   6.00-7.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [ 12]   6.00-7.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  2924
                  [SUM]   6.00-7.00   sec   115 MBytes   961 Mbits/sec  39102
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  23.1 MBytes   194 Mbits/sec  27480
                  [  6]   7.00-8.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2958
                  [  8]   7.00-8.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2916
                  [ 10]   7.00-8.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2916
                  [ 12]   7.00-8.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec  2916
                  [SUM]   7.00-8.00   sec   114 MBytes   958 Mbits/sec  39186
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  23.0 MBytes   193 Mbits/sec  27535
                  [  6]   8.00-9.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2942
                  [  8]   8.00-9.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [ 10]   8.00-9.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [ 12]   8.00-9.00   sec  22.6 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2899
                  [SUM]   8.00-9.00   sec   114 MBytes   953 Mbits/sec  39174
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  23.0 MBytes   193 Mbits/sec  27568
                  [  6]   9.00-10.00  sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2944
                  [  8]   9.00-10.00  sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [ 10]   9.00-10.00  sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [ 12]   9.00-10.00  sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  2901
                  [SUM]   9.00-10.00  sec   114 MBytes   953 Mbits/sec  39215
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter    Lost/Total Datagrams
                  [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   229 MBytes   192 Mbits/sec  0.629 ms  241919/271230 (89%)
                  [  4] Sent 271230 datagrams
                  [  6]   0.00-10.00  sec   226 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  199.514 ms  505/29363 (1.7%)
                  [  6] Sent 29363 datagrams
                  [  8]   0.00-10.00  sec   226 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  0.678 ms  64/28939 (0.22%)
                  [  8] Sent 28939 datagrams
                  [ 10]   0.00-10.00  sec   226 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  0.636 ms  63/28939 (0.22%)
                  [ 10] Sent 28939 datagrams
                  [ 12]   0.00-10.00  sec   226 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec  0.660 ms  68/28938 (0.23%)
                  [ 12] Sent 28938 datagrams
                  [SUM]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.11 GBytes   951 Mbits/sec  40.423 ms  242619/387409 (63%)
                  
                  iperf Done.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    One has got to love the "scientific" approach almost everybody in this thread has displayed so far. Michael's benchmark had spitted out some numbers and everyone immediately jumped to conclusions about Linux sucking, BSD being far superior and whatnot. Nobody seemed to realize that results of any benchmark are just numbers which are absolutely meaningless without proper interpretation. For instance, Fedora comes with a firewalld daemon enabled by default and so does CentOS - it is quite likely that it could have interfered with some of the tests. Look at the min-max bars of CentOS and Fedora performances in that one microbenchmark where BSD came out ahead - in some cases it gets close to 100 % error. This clearly suggests there was something going on behind the scenes. But yeah, it's easier to take some empty numbers at face value and go from there...

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by xnor View Post

                      People don't understand what bloated/lightweight means. Archlinux for example claims to be lightweight, and yet a minimal installation is several times larger than a Debian minimal installation. Installing some packages just increases this difference further. Just take something like gnuplot. On Arch it will not only pull in qt5 but also mesa, gtk2, gstreamer, avahi, wayland ... and their dependencies plus all the development files ...
                      We're talking ~10 vs. over 250 MB here.

                      Ubuntu is not much more bloated, and it doesn't matter in this test anyway. It ships more up-to-date software however, which is probably the main reason why there are differences.
                      Do you really think that the number and size of packages that are on your hard drive are in any measure relevant to network speed ? It's just 0s and 1s on your hard drive, you could have 8k HDR cat videos on your computer and it would be the same.


                      I wonder, with such differences, if there may not be a problem at some point with the ethernet packets sent by Linux that forces the router to do more work or something like this... it would be interesting to do some comparison with wireshark between linux and bsd for the same task.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X