Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DragonFlyBSD 5.2, TrueOS 18.03, FreeBSD 11.1, Ubuntu 16.04/18.04 & Clear Linux Tests

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

  • #11
    Many of these test results make little to no sense unless there are different compiler options, and if there are different compiler settings then you are not comparing operating systems, but compiler options. Why are the compiler options no longer displayed ?

    As it stands, only the Go benchmarks can be trusted since there are no optimization flags in the Go compiler.

    Comment


    • #12
      Nice, I would like to see benchmarks which includes NetBSD and OpenBSD, too.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
        I think that the reason why you see so many firewalls and load balances running FreeBSD is because these companies can utilize the work that the FreeBSD developers have put in while still being able to release a proprietary product. They most definitively does not choose FreeBSD due to it's "high performance network stack" since all the packet switching on these products are done by FPGA fabric and not by the main CPU.
        Usual "Phoronix Linux-Supremacist/Apologist" bullshit. Juniper for example has back-fed both code (means: contributed lots of development hours) and straight money. Some FreeBSD corporate users contribute hardware (HP) or offer net resources (Yahoo, ISC, Sentex..).

        If you personally happen to be greedy son of a bitch, it does not automatically mean everyone else are.

        Originally posted by nuetzel View Post
        And *BSD run the super computers of the world... *LOL*
        It may run networked-together superclusters but does not do shit on scale-up supercomputers - which means single physical mainframe with shitload of processors and gargantuan computing ability on it's nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus - which still takes real old-fashioned Unix. Such are super-expensive, fairly rare but when it's needed it does jobs simple clusters - and thus Linux - cannot.

        Originally posted by jacob View Post
        Unless I missed something, these benchmarks don't say anything about ZFS being faster. BTW by suggesting that a piece of software has "apologists" and is thus somehow akin to a crime, you put yourself immediately to the ridiculous fanboy category.
        WHENEVER there is newsarticle about BSD or Solaris - bunch of fanboys crawl in and start posting - depending on the content of the news article - just why Linux was worse off and it's usually is better (apologist mode) or why Linux is so much better and BSD/Solaris or whatever should just die (supermacist mode).

        You don't even realize how childish this is. Just to give you a perspective: To a person not caring about computers at all - you appear like complete loonies.. who the fuck in their right mind should care about the relative qualities of one obscure software over the other?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by aht0 View Post

          Usual "Phoronix Linux-Supremacist/Apologist" bullshit. Juniper for example has back-fed both code (means: contributed lots of development hours) and straight money. Some FreeBSD corporate users contribute hardware (HP) or offer net resources (Yahoo, ISC, Sentex..).

          If you personally happen to be greedy son of a bitch, it does not automatically mean everyone else are.
          Contributing code upstream and contributing money and/or hw have nothing to do with weather these companies can release a proprietary product with BSDs in a way that they cannot do with Linux. This is not to say that they would have chosen to go with Linux instead if Linux was released under a BSD license, but the license is clearly one part of why they prefer the BSDs.

          It may run networked-together superclusters but does not do shit on scale-up supercomputers - which means single physical mainframe with shitload of processors and gargantuan computing ability on it's nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus - which still takes real old-fashioned Unix. Such are super-expensive, fairly rare but when it's needed it does jobs simple clusters - and thus Linux - cannot.
          Now this sounds like something Kebabbert could have written. Do you honestly believe that any of the BSDs scale better than Linux when it comes to the number of processors? And what is a "nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus" ?
          Last edited by F.Ultra; 04-22-2018, 01:22 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
            Contributing code upstream and contributing money and/or hw have nothing to do with weather these companies can release a proprietary product with BSDs in a way that they cannot do with Linux. This is not to say that they would have chosen to go with Linux instead if Linux was released under a BSD license, but the license is clearly one part of why they prefer the BSDs.
            Ask them why they chose BSD. As it is, it's just your guess.

            Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
            Now this sounds like something Kebabbert could have written. Do you honestly believe that any of the BSDs scale better than Linux when it comes to the number of processors? And what is a "nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus" ?
            I don't know who this Kebabbert is nor care. I mentioned only Unix. BSD's are Unix-like.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by hax0r View Post
              *BSD edging out Linux in storage and networking is nothing new, *BSD are commonly used in enterprise storage solutions and where high performance tcp/ip stack is needed, almost every DDoS mitigation hardware runs *BSD, and look at Netflix, it is no coincidence. Linux desktop users are always in worst position, not only there is no good choice for filesystem or fast tcp/ip, they suffer most from poor kernel scheduler choice, CFS, that is configured for workloads with >1024 cpus and provide poor performance for typical audio/video production or gaming. Simple spikes in I/O load can hike iowait% out of roof and cause stutter. You can give up your freedom and join NSA data mining botnet by installing Windows 10 or macos, or keep suffering GNU/Linux fate. Con Kolivas also stated that he doesn't plan on updating CK patchset for 4.16 https://ck-hack.blogspot.com/, 2018 is quickly turning out to be worst Linux Desktop Year.
              What a bunch of crap from crapXor. Linux outperforms *BSD in TCP/Ip and disk performance. What CPU scheduller have to do with I/O? Only crapXor knows. Are you aware Windows crawls when there's heavy I/O in the background? Did you ever see netcraft data? Do you know netflix is using Linux? *BSD is nothing, but a toy. You don't see it in serious tasks. When comes to firewalls its market share is tiny in comparison to Linux (I don't count proprietary based solutions), so get out with such crap.

              While crapXor was saying something about netflix:

              Their proof of concept patches are online[1]. I tested them and saw 0% improvements on the systems I tested, for some simple workloads[2]. I tested 1 and 2 node NUMA, as that is typical for my employer (Netflix, and our tens of thousands of Linux instances in the AWS/EC2 cloud), even though I wasn't expecting any difference on 1 node. I've used synthetic workloads so far.
              And here is server robustness data:

              https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2...arch-2018.html
              Last edited by Pawlerson; 04-22-2018, 05:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post

                It may run networked-together superclusters but does not do shit on scale-up supercomputers - which means single physical mainframe with shitload of processors and gargantuan computing ability on it's nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus - which still takes real old-fashioned Unix. Such are super-expensive, fairly rare but when it's needed it does jobs simple clusters - and thus Linux - cannot.
                Examples? In SAP there's just Linux, Windows and AIX. Oh, and dying slowlaris from time to time. This real old-fashioned Unix didn't support SMP, so ask yourself how stupid your comment was.
                Last edited by Pawlerson; 04-22-2018, 04:31 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  Ask them why they chose BSD. As it is, it's just your guess.



                  I don't know who this Kebabbert is nor care. I mentioned only Unix. BSD's are Unix-like.
                  Well it's your guess as well, funnily however you are the only one that combines your guesses with insults. Anyway the main gist of my original comment was that they didn't choose BSD due to it's network stack which is not a guess but a fact since networking on those types of hardware is done outside the control of the main CPU.

                  What does Unix-like have to do with scaling to many CPU:s and "nanosecond-scale-delay processor bus"? A commodity x86 server in 2018 have far more cpu cores than the biggest system you ran traditional Unix on back in the day.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    Ask them why they chose BSD. As it is, it's just your guess.
                    Because BSD is proprietary whore. It's such simple. Furthermore, you're behaving like a hypocrite as usual.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      It's interesting that the Poisson Pressure Solver has FreeBSD 11.1 at the bottom and TrueOS at the top [Effectively 12-CURRENT]. Either there are some big performance improvements in AVX in the 12.x kernel, or the TrueOS guys have figured out some mean compiler options to achieve such huge gains. As someone who runs some AVX-heavy workloads on 11.1, I'm going to seriously look into what is giving such a big boost.

                      Thanks for continuing with the BSD tests, Michael!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X