FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

[L33F3R]

Srry. I cant actually see my image as my eyes are dilated too much. Damn optometry....

[kraftman]

Curious, which options? Does it have "gcc -g" options?

The FreeBSD (all release and release candidate GENERIC kernels) have full debugging symbols (and code) "gcc -g" enabled.

It seems "gcc -g" is enabled and some other debugging options (many are probably meaningless).

From /boot/*config*:

CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_API_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_X86_DEBUGCTLMSR=y
CONFIG_X86_CPU_DEBUG=m
CONFIG_PM_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_IRDA_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_CFG80211_REG_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_CFG80211_DEBUGFS=y
CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS=y
CONFIG_WIMAX_DEBUG_LEVEL=8
CONFIG_PNP_DEBUG_MESSAGES=y
CONFIG_CB710_DEBUG_ASSUMPTIONS=y
CONFIG_AIC7XXX_DEBUG_ENABLE=y
CONFIG_AIC7XXX_DEBUG_MASK=0
CONFIG_AIC79XX_DEBUG_ENABLE=y
CONFIG_AIC79XX_DEBUG_MASK=0
CONFIG_SCSI_MVSAS_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_SCSI_LPFC_DEBUG_FS=y
CONFIG_SCSI_DEBUG=m
CONFIG_FIREWIRE_OHCI_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_MLX4_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_ATH9K_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_LIBIPW_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_B43LEGACY_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_WIMAX_I2400M_DEBUG_LEVEL=8
CONFIG_ATM_FORE200E_DEBUG=0
CONFIG_USB_SERIAL_DEBUG=m
CONFIG_INFINIBAND_MTHCA_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_INFINIBAND_AMSO1100_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_INFINIBAND_IPOIB_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI_DEBUGFACILITIES=y
CONFIG_OCFS2_DEBUG_MASKLOG=y
CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_DEBUG=0
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_INIT=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y

config DEBUG_INFO
bool "Compile the kernel with debug info"
depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
help
If you say Y here the resulting kernel image will include
debugging info resulting in a larger kernel image.
This adds debug symbols to the kernel and modules (gcc -g), and
is needed if you intend to use kernel crashdump or binary object
tools like crash, kgdb, LKCD, gdb, etc on the kernel.
Say Y here only if you plan to debug the kernel.

This description is from Kconfig.debug (there's also Kconfig), but I assume if DEBUG_INFO is turned on in the config Kconfig.debug is used (or I'm just saying bull :P).

However, different GCC versions were used in the benchmark.

If unsure, say N.

[risner]

I just checked Ubuntu and there are some debugging option turned on, but probably very light

Curious, which options? Does it have "gcc -g" options?

The FreeBSD (all release and release candidate GENERIC kernels) have full debugging symbols (and code) "gcc -g" enabled.

[Penti]

Sounds like a political issue that only they have to me.

[kraftman]

Can't verify the debug options myself.

What I heard is that some debug things were turned on for the BSD kernel and not the Ubuntu kernel. If that's wrong, so BSD and Ubuntu had similar debug options turned on, then I suppose the benchmark is okay from that perspective.

To be honest, all these comments that look like they're coming from 2-year olds is that destroys this thread.

Anyway. Can't wait for the huge OS/distro comparison.

I just checked Ubuntu and there are some debugging option turned on, but probably very light

[risner]

I dare you quote the part of the page that actually in your opinion says that.

I can't help that FreeBSD's attorneys advised against switching to GPLv3 due to the wording of that page and/or the license. Are you a lawyer? Can you indemdify users of GCC 4.2.2 based on their statement that nothing has changed, when the other parts of the page directly suggests otherwise?

Basically, you shot the messenger. I didn't make the decision, I just posted about it. This whole debacle isn't a FreeBSD specific problem. Every single BSD with the exception of DragonFlyBSD have opted to not upgrade past 4.2.1 GCC.

[nanonyme]

Did a little googling, I think this is the problem:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

Where they now (with GCC 4.2.2) consider OUTPUT of the GCC compiler GPLv3 licensed material. That would prevent someone from using GCC 4.2.2 and up to compile anything and release the compiled application without source code for the whole system (because Target Code is now forced to be GPLv3 code) being released.

I dare you quote the part of the page that actually in your opinion says that.
Important parts of the page: "Our fundamental policy has not changed; the new license is meant to permit all the uses of GCC that were permitted before." They are merely afraid of loopholes in licenses that would allow someone to use "GCC's internal, low-level compilation data structures" and being allowed to integrate those components in some other compiler under a different (GPL-incompatible) license.

[gongoputch]

Of course you are aware that 8.0 doesn't have the debugging symbols out of the kernel even, let alone libc, malloc, etc. yet. Why not set up a more real world benchmark like a MySQL or Postgres ACID test, or a tpc benchmark. Zipping files will generate a mostly sequential read and/or write, not really where filesystems tend to fall down. Did the compile tests use concurrency?
Nice graphs tho.
If you wanted to talk to some seasoned BSD admins about setting up benchmarks, try me in ##freebsd on freenode.

[risner]

I didn't do any research on this, so sorry if this question is stupid, but how is GPLv3 anymore incompatible with the BSD-license than GPLv2? The GPL has always been more restrictive and thus BSD-incompatible, but that didn't stop them from shipping GPLed software before now, has it?

I am not a licensing expert so I can only comment on the situation as I remember it when the decision to stop at GCC 4.2.1 was made by the FreeBSD developers. At the time it was said to be a legal reason and not a "political" or emotional reason.

What I do know is that the BSD license is significantly more permissive than the GPL license, particularly the GPLv3 license. There are a number of licenses incompatible with GPLv3 including Apache 1-2.0, Mozilla, Original BSD, XFree86 1.1 and GPLv3 (if not for the usual "code can be upgraded to future GPL licenses" line in most GPLv2 versions.)

Did a little googling, I think this is the problem:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

Where they now (with GCC 4.2.2) consider OUTPUT of the GCC compiler GPLv3 licensed material. That would prevent someone from using GCC 4.2.2 and up to compile anything and release the compiled application without source code for the whole system (because Target Code is now forced to be GPLv3 code) being released.

[Zhick]

Rebuild ports/world with GCC 4.3 or 4.4 to take advantage of SSE3/SSE4 CPU features prohibited due to restrictive licensing imposed by GCC. GCC starting with 4.2.2 is under GPL3, which is an incompatible license with BSD license. So they can not legally ship GCC 4.2.2 or up (which is why you see 7.2 and 8.0 using GCC 4.2.1 compiler.)

I didn't do any research on this, so sorry if this question is stupid, but how is GPLv3 anymore incompatible with the BSD-license than GPLv2? The GPL has always been more restrictive and thus BSD-incompatible, but that didn't stop them from shipping GPLed software before now, has it?