Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Three BSD Operating Systems Compare To Ten Linux Distributions

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

  • Asariati
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: How Three BSD Operating Systems Compare To Ten Linux Distributions

    Earlier this week I posted the results of a 10-way Linux distribution battle on the same Intel Xeon system and using all of the popular and latest Linux distribution releases. Taking things further, the article today has those results complemented by results on the Xeon system for several BSD operating systems. For seeing how the BSD performance stacks up to Linux, DragonFlyBSD, OpenBSD, and the FreeBSD-based PC-BSD were benchmarked.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=22703
    Why is ClearLinux missing from the first SQLite "Default Test Directory" and then suddenly shows up in Compile Bench? There is also one other Linux distribution missing from that test. Why?
    Same question for the "FLAC Audio Encoding v1.3.1 test? Does that mean one can't encode audio on ClearLinux? Oh wait, it does show up in the "Lame MP3 Encoding v3.99.3" test !?

    Shouldn't discrepancies like this be mentioned somewhere in the text?


    And I have no idea what this table on the first page is trying to tell me. I think the font size is a little too small:



    Leave a comment:


  • dimko
    replied
    Originally posted by TeamBlackFox View Post
    And where the hell is NetBSD? That would have been interesting to say the least.
    Where is my favourite beast of all times, Gentoo? It constantly beats everything thrown at it in most Michaels benchmarks. Including BSD

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Adarion View Post
    Impressive comparison, though the appearance of the BSDs seemed a bit uneven. ZFS is clearly good for a couple of things. Ah, well, but to be fair one had to test a couple of file systems for each case on the Linux kernel side. Back at the times e.g. reiser 3.6. was unbeaten for systems with a lot of small files.

    Any reason for not including GPU side tests? I saw a relatively low end GPU was used, but why not? Afair the *BSDs do have kernel modesetting my now and the license of the AMD driver parts should allow easy porting.
    Because this particular system was using a Radeon HD 4550 that doesn't even work under Linux kernel with Radeon DRM due to mode-setting issues, so even under Linux the support was disabled and thus unaccelerated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adarion
    replied
    Impressive comparison, though the appearance of the BSDs seemed a bit uneven. ZFS is clearly good for a couple of things. Ah, well, but to be fair one had to test a couple of file systems for each case on the Linux kernel side. Back at the times e.g. reiser 3.6. was unbeaten for systems with a lot of small files.

    Any reason for not including GPU side tests? I saw a relatively low end GPU was used, but why not? Afair the *BSDs do have kernel modesetting my now and the license of the AMD driver parts should allow easy porting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    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.
    Sans file-system differences, past tests I've done haven't shown much difference between PC-BSD and FreeBSD when using the same kernel and compiler.

    With NetBSD it was running into problems on the system and didn't have the time to investigate.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeamBlackFox
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • How Three BSD Operating Systems Compare To Ten Linux Distributions

    Phoronix: How Three BSD Operating Systems Compare To Ten Linux Distributions

    Earlier this week I posted the results of a 10-way Linux distribution battle on the same Intel Xeon system and using all of the popular and latest Linux distribution releases. Taking things further, the article today has those results complemented by results on the Xeon system for several BSD operating systems. For seeing how the BSD performance stacks up to Linux, DragonFlyBSD, OpenBSD, and the FreeBSD-based PC-BSD were benchmarked.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
Working...
X