Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Three BSD Operating Systems Compare To Ten Linux Distributions

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

  • SystemCrasher
    replied
    Originally posted by wikinevick View Post
    OpenBSD may be very secure
    Uhm, yeah, they just finished round of security fixes in very secure openssh. Sorry, but if you pedal security too much, you're going to be eaten on slightest vuln. And these two recent vulns were quite big, actually.

    Leave a comment:


  • SystemCrasher
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    Was ashift set correctly on the ZFS vdevs? To answer the obvious response. There is no default. The setting depends on what the hardware reports and if the hardware lies it is blindly trusted. Were the distributions using XFS configured to give it a 4K block size?
    I think Michael does right thing: testing how it performs out of the box. That's what most users would actually see. Sorry, but demanding everyone to detect block sizes and somesuch just not going to work. So either defaults perform adequately or you get crappy results and users are being unhappy - for a reason. Getting some extras after proper tuning is good, but things should work reasonably by default, out of the box. Else its crappy code or crappy defaults, crappy (sub)systems and so on. That's how users would see it.

    Whatever, but we have real world full of ignorant users and imperfect hardware full of odds, bugs and quirks. It would be better if HW is perfect, etc. But it not going to happen. Ignoring this fact is .. ahem, naive.

    P.S. hmm, PC-BSD wasn't worst of the bunch and even won in some cases. Not bad for BSD . Though I think it is fair to test Linux distros on more assorted filesystems to get idea what various designs can do and how it compares. I think it is reasonable to compare btrfs, zfs, xfs and ext4 on HDD & SSD and f2fs on SSDs, etc? Sure, test matrix happens to be quite large. Also, FreeBSD or clones are good to run on ZFS and UFS2. Let's see if claims of BSD fans about UFS2 are at least half-true.

    Leave a comment:


  • rabcor
    replied
    PCBSD and Dragonfly look pretty nice. Clearlinux also coming in strong. OpenBSD... Lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • wikinevick
    replied
    I wonder the linux distributions vary so much among them.

    Very interesting ... my conclusions: FreeBSD/PCBSD is basically at the same level and sometimes beats the performance behind the best linux distributions. OpenBSD may be very secure but performance just sucks, perhaps because they are so late in getting real SMP support.

    Leave a comment:


  • rhavenn
    replied
    Props to FreeBSD / PC-BSD for hanging in there and even out right winning a few benchmarks. Hopefully, that will shift a few peoples' opinions about FreeBSD.

    Thanks Michael for running the tests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xaero_Vincent
    replied
    Michael, have you done any 3D / graphics performance benchmarks between BSD and Linux before?

    E.g., Supertuxkart and Open Arena with the Nvidia proprietary driver on BSD and Linux? A FOSS graphics stack benchmark would be interesting as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post
    Where's FreeBSD in this? PC-BSD isn't a good test for FreeBSD because its a downstream distribution of it.
    ???

    Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post
    And where the hell is NetBSD? That would have been interesting to say the least.
    It wouldn't have hurt, but I appreciate what is there nonetheless.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Was ashift set correctly on the ZFS vdevs? To answer the obvious response. There is no default. The setting depends on what the hardware reports and if the hardware lies it is blindly trusted. Were the distributions using XFS configured to give it a 4K block size?

    Lastly, if you can compile production binaries at the numbers in your "compile bench" benchmark, you would likely have numerous companies trying to partner with you. Compilation is a CPU bound task. Numbers from speeding up a simulation of the IO pattern among other similarly inane things that I am sure experts in other areas could identify are meaningless unless your goal is to hurt the OSS community by flooding it with users who are even more confused about performance than they were before reading your benchmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuuchan
    replied
    I found this comparison interesting, and would like to see more BSD/Linux comparisons.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkcoder
    replied
    Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post
    Where's FreeBSD in this? PC-BSD isn't a good test for FreeBSD because its a downstream distribution of it - you should have included a vanilla FreeBSD installation with a comparable setup to the others. Also, FreeBSD's UFS2 is totally different from OpenBSD so this tells us little in the way of filesystem performance.

    And where the hell is NetBSD? That would have been interesting to say the least.

    Not sure, but I think these days they are much likely the same. At the begining PC-BSD used to modify/recompile many of the stuff, but now they even do simultaneously releases with FreeBSD. I doubt by heavy customizing they will be able to do that.

    Also these days they use the low memory footprint desktop Lumina instead of KDE.

    But you are right about NetBSD. It should be there. But performance wise probably is somewhere between PC-BSD/FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X