Linux Distributions vs. BSDs With netperf & iperf3 Network Performance

[thomasj]

What happened with DragonflyBSD? I thought that it was supposed to have the best performance of the BSD's?

[xnor]

Debian finishing behind bloated Ubuntu in some tests... Tsk, tsk...

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.

[jakubo]

what can we learn from that?
is it even possible to make fedora 5 times faster? Or is it simply a choice that was made to sacrifice network for something else (while that wouldnt answer clear linux's performance.. and the question why they use these flags, while all others dont...) is there any effect for the desktop or laptop user? longer battery life due to more efficiency? faste downloading pages? smaller pings? what do these numbers mean? and can you not take the code from bsd and use it in linux? whats so different? the drivers? architecture? scheduler?

[TeamBlackFox]

rofl... and I sorta remember pal666, Pawlerson, SystemCrasher and such preaching some months a go in other BSD-related threads how ***BSD networking stack is way inferior to one of Linux in every conceivable way...

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.

What happened with DragonflyBSD? I thought that it was supposed to have the best performance of the BSD's?

Well, it is, AFAIK, a lot more experimental than FreeBSD. I've only used it occasionally as I don't have many Intel or AMD graphics boxes hanging around I can use it with - but these are artificial tests - there may be better real-world trials to look at.

and can you not take the code from bsd and use it in linux? whats so different? the drivers? architecture? scheduler?

You can, but there's a difference of APIs, programming styles etc.

[137ben]

So in every test that isn't tied, FreeBSD comes in either first or last.

[wikinevick]

For network related things that's true. So true.

And for advanced filesystems its also true, so true.

[Guest]

and this explains why netflix prefered freebsd instead of linux!

It doesn't explain a thing, because defaults were tested. Here is real life example:

https://news.netcraft.com/

[Guest]

Wow, Linux sucks! I mean it literally sucks, vs. FreeBSD which flies in comparison.

No, it's you that sucks the most. There were dozens of benchmarks in Phoronix were Linux smashed out FreeBSD.

[Guest]

And for advanced filesystems its also true, so true.

That's why enterprise computing uses FreeBSD. Oh wait, they don't! Just because FreeBSD stole ZFS from Solaris doesn't mean it's better when comes to filesystems. It only has ZFS while Linux has many filesystems for different workloads.

[labyrinth153]

No, it's you that sucks the most. There were dozens of benchmarks in Phoronix were Linux smashed out FreeBSD.

Dozens of benchmarks where FreeBSD "smashed out" Linux. Stop being a fanboy.