Originally posted by ImNtReal
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux
Collapse
X
-
-
Fedora 17 on a ThinkPad T530 with a Core i7 3820QM (Ivy Bridge):
Code:OpenSSL 1.0.0j-fips 10 May 2012 built on: Tue May 15 18:29:32 UTC 2012 options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) blowfish(idx) compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DMD32_REG_T=int -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes md2 3008.33k 6125.53k 8254.33k 9062.40k 9318.06k mdc2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md4 84434.65k 264374.44k 644257.82k 996092.25k 1190922.27k md5 63187.66k 188001.96k 423254.82k 610036.74k 704076.37k hmac(md5) 53563.74k 158385.32k 381761.33k 587953.83k 699139.25k sha1 70823.08k 203082.40k 443047.08k 641391.96k 755614.74k rmd160 43356.44k 106884.32k 195177.22k 248272.40k 268170.58k rc4 413256.97k 705812.38k 816161.71k 857680.14k 867560.11k des cbc 73307.18k 75891.22k 76088.23k 76249.43k 76673.28k des ede3 28634.92k 29143.91k 29111.04k 29096.28k 29140.51k idea cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 seed cbc 81854.90k 81229.66k 81740.80k 81892.94k 81685.16k rc2 cbc 50009.57k 50417.49k 50973.62k 50972.67k 51217.81k rc5-32/12 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 blowfish cbc 131123.55k 138414.21k 140498.02k 140976.13k 141442.14k cast cbc 115903.82k 122357.83k 123058.09k 124024.55k 124466.52k aes-128 cbc 131762.18k 144214.26k 146054.66k 147490.13k 148666.99k aes-192 cbc 111920.14k 119723.99k 122373.22k 123111.08k 123778.65k aes-256 cbc 97196.49k 103389.61k 104866.25k 105222.14k 105835.71k camellia-128 cbc 103898.70k 158217.12k 178736.81k 185166.26k 185305.77k camellia-192 cbc 89495.65k 122895.72k 134847.02k 138753.37k 140587.32k camellia-256 cbc 89182.87k 122451.71k 133507.50k 137959.17k 140557.19k sha256 53759.63k 120741.07k 207696.30k 260242.09k 280949.98k sha512 42240.75k 170258.99k 260882.09k 367734.44k 426915.53k whirlpool 25523.32k 54972.21k 91044.18k 108745.39k 115726.38k aes-128 ige 134028.59k 138739.73k 140249.64k 140259.33k 140195.16k aes-192 ige 112835.38k 116868.29k 118129.44k 118033.41k 118226.94k aes-256 ige 98245.07k 101325.87k 102308.39k 102273.02k 102643.84k sign verify sign/s verify/s rsa 512 bits 0.000047s 0.000004s 21073.7 241610.2 rsa 1024 bits 0.000233s 0.000013s 4291.7 79594.7 rsa 2048 bits 0.001526s 0.000044s 655.3 22677.0 rsa 4096 bits 0.010720s 0.000177s 93.3 5659.5 sign verify sign/s verify/s dsa 512 bits 0.000052s 0.000050s 19249.6 20171.6 dsa 1024 bits 0.000133s 0.000147s 7533.8 6822.4 dsa 2048 bits 0.000441s 0.000515s 2268.3 1942.4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View PostOh yeah, it's 1.5-2 times slower in quite many tests and by 4 whole times slower in openssl. "A little slower". Hmmph.
Though I'm fail to understand how exactly *BSD guys managed to get such a bad results on same hardware. They managed to both get crapwrecked CPU scheduler and poor syscall servicing times? Broken hardware initialization? Or how they could lose whole 4 times in openssl which is more or less computational test? It does not even requires servicing many syscalls!
I don't know how the benchmark for PTS works, but I'm curious why the test result panel says "OpenSSL 1.0.0e" which is not the (recently) packaged Debian version.
Otherwise, I'd guess the cause of this is something hardware-specific, with this particular CPU not reaching full performance under this FreeBSD kernel version. I would check for anything related to CPU scaling, power draw (which is nice to see in many Phoronix benchmarks), or otherwise see if FreeBSD have already made any changes in HEAD / kfreebsd-10 relating to this hardware.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostThis results in any commercial OS based ON BSD code to be faster, better and more efficient than ANY BSD.
Which in turn has three multiple consequences for BSD:
- to exist only and only in shadow
.
In *BSD world everyone have to reinvent wheel again. Just because competitor wants to slow all "enemies" down and outrun them. So everyone reinvents the wheel. In Linux world, wheel invented once and then similar bunch of people improves it instead of parallel re-invention of the same thing. Seems to give quite an obvious results.
Leave a comment:
-
4 times - a little slower?
Originally posted by disi View PostI see a pattern emerging, it seems consistent for BSD to be a little slower than Linux
Though I'm fail to understand how exactly *BSD guys managed to get such a bad results on same hardware. They managed to both get crapwrecked CPU scheduler and poor syscall servicing times? Broken hardware initialization? Or how they could lose whole 4 times in openssl which is more or less computational test? It does not even requires servicing many syscalls!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ImNtReal View PostIf BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
Originally posted by archibald View Post<as if it's not abundantly clear: sarcasm>That was a joint conspiracy from Apple and Windows to encourage more BSD development so that they can steal the code and linux will suffer ;-)</sarcasm>
Because BSD license has no freedom protection clause, as in free to do whatever you want.
This results in any commercial OS based ON BSD code to be faster, better and more efficient than ANY BSD.
Which in turn has three multiple consequences for BSD:
- to exist only and only in shadow
- to receive just a corn from the table, donated
- to be breeding pool for non-free software, just like a dead cow corpse for worms, worms have shown hostility towards open-source software that PROTECTS its freedom.
No sarcasm intended.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ImNtReal View PostIf BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
Leave a comment:
-
Games?
If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by allquixotic View PostOr the BSD kernel itself is inherently slower than Linux?
Wouldn't surprise me; there's been a ridiculous amount of investment in Linux lately. Sure, you can't just fix any problem by throwing money at it, but at least in computer science, you can develop new algorithms with really impressive average and worst-case performance. I know they're very careful about algorithm selection and use in the Linux kernel, and that's one of the main areas where Linux beats out pretty much everyone.
Since these tests mainly benchmark CPU based operations, this comes as no surprise that Linux would be faster. It has an amazing scheduler; BSD doesn't.
These benchmarks aren't testing I/O performance (disk) or GPU performance, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll bet that Linux is still faster for GPU performance, but it remains to be seen how they'd stack up on the disk I/O front. I'm not so confident that Linux would take the cake there, because ext4 at least is pretty slow in some of the tests we've run on it. It's a pretty lopsided filesystem: some tests, it performs amazingly well; others, it falls down completely. I'd actually want to see how XFS stands up against BSD's filesystem (ZFS, I guess). XFS is not going to blow you away with amazing numbers in any one test, but it's designed so that it pretty much can't get into a horrible worst-case performance scenario... so you aren't going to see it performing at only 10% the speed of ZFS on any of the benchmarks, either. It'll be right up there with it, and occasionally excelling.
x264 and the ffmpeg tests, and even Chris Wilson's SNA hardware-specific optimisations and micro optimizations all show you the massive benefits and the need today to actually benchmark and re-write all your separate code routines and macro's etc to get far better throughput and also remove code cruft on a consistently regular basis, writing "good enough if it works" code is clearly not good enough today, you need to be better and make the time to write quality benchmarked code and actually test it for speed as well as correctness before you commit that latest patch.Last edited by popper; 25 June 2012, 08:13 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Linux has no real filesystem, has it?
I just setup my laptop with ZFSOnLinux as root fs and Gentoo last weekend. Works fine so far except of grub2 didn't like to boot the pool directly, so it needed an extra 100MB boot partition.
As soon as I decided on a GUI (DE) etc. I'll try to run some benchmarks...
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: