Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DragonFlyBSD 4.6 vs. Linux Benchmarks

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

  • DragonFlyBSD 4.6 vs. Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: DragonFlyBSD 4.6 vs. Linux Benchmarks

    With DragonFlyBSD 4.6 having been released this week, here are benchmarks comparing its performance to that of the previous DragonFlyBSD 4.4 release as well as seeing how it compares to some Linux distributions.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23391

  • #2
    IIRC DragonflyBSD was launched in 2003 because Dillon believed that mainline FreeBSD was wrong in choosing the Linux-style approach toward SMP. Fast-forward 13 years and it's still nowhere near being competitive. It looks like it was FreeBSD who was right after all.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow, I mean DragonFly BSD sure scored lower across the board except for one test, but it sure is hella competitive. Probably competitive enough to give windows a run for it's money. How far behind Linux is dragonfly BSD when it comes to drivers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rabcor View Post
        How far behind Linux is dragonfly BSD when it comes to drivers?
        Probably the same as most BSDs, it you aren't running server stuff you need blob drivers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Jaw dropping... I assumed from start that it's gonna be faster...
          After all, BSD family is not binary distro, but all is compiled, right?
          I am on Gentoo myself.(Kinda... My Mobo and CPU burned out, Vishera 8350 + Asus mobo, both) so over a month with no PC.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dimko View Post
            Jaw dropping... I assumed from start that it's gonna be faster...
            After all, BSD family is not binary distro, but all is compiled, right?
            I am on Gentoo myself.(Kinda... My Mobo and CPU burned out, Vishera 8350 + Asus mobo, both) so over a month with no PC.
            No, you *can* compile things easily on the BSDs through the ports trees but all of them also have binary packages at this point and there's no reason to believe that Michael compiled anything as opposed to installing from packages.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jacob View Post
              IIRC DragonflyBSD was launched in 2003 because Dillon believed that mainline FreeBSD was wrong in choosing the Linux-style approach toward SMP. Fast-forward 13 years and it's still nowhere near being competitive. It looks like it was FreeBSD who was right after all.
              An SMP benchmark comparison between FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD would be interesting.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rabcor View Post
                Wow, I mean DragonFly BSD sure scored lower across the board except for one test, but it sure is hella competitive. Probably competitive enough to give windows a run for it's money. How far behind Linux is dragonfly BSD when it comes to drivers?
                I don't know about drivers, but honestly it's IMHO not such a big deal as some people claim. For a server OS, which is Dragonfly's market, you simply get the hardware that the OS you plan to use runs on.

                The problem I see is that if OS A is noticeably slower than OS B, then you would be silly to use it unless it offers some other compelling advantage instead. For example OpenBSD may not rival Linux on performance either, but its focus on security through superior code simplicity and readability is an advantage so that there are scenarios in which it makes perfect sense to choose it. Similarly NetBSD supports some hardware, particularly older computers, that no other current OS can revive. In the case of DragonflyBSD, I'm not aware of any trademark advantage like that. It's one promise was that the design Matt Dillon envisioned would be simpler, yet it would provide equal or better performance. That didn't turn out to be the case, so for now it looks like Dragonfly is relegated to the "hobby OS" category, alongside Haiku and AROS. That's not meant to be disparaging at all, such projects can be lots of fun and, indeed, useful, but it surely doesn't vindicate Matt's wild claims.

                Comment


                • #9
                  13 years later they have the same text based installer...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Passso View Post
                    13 years later they have the same text based installer...
                    Still, that text-based installer is fine and powerful.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X