Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks

[jmartin]

> And remember that it is well known that Solaris does not shine with
> one or 2 CPUs.

I don't agree. If you have a specific case where Solaris is not
performing well on one or two CPUs, please file a bug at
http://bugs.opensolaris.org.

It is possible some of the performance differences are due to the
gcc version being used as Solaris bundles gcc 3.4.3 and other distros
may bundle 4.x, but it is much more likely due to the default ABI
used by the bundled gcc. "gcc -O" on Solaris will default to ia32/x87,
whereas on the other "64 bit" distros tested it will default to amd64.
The performance difference can be seen in the two Byte Computational
benchmarks on page 7 where Solaris appears to lag: Dhrystone 2
(./Run dhry2) and Floating-Point Arithmetic (./Run float). These
tests are compiled with "gcc -O" which produces ia32/x87 code.
When adding "-m64" which puts Solaris on par with the other distros,
the performance jumps quite a bit. Measured on a Intel QX6700,
dhry2 goes from 9307771.4 to 13421763.5 and float goes from
707932.5 to 1477185.6.

The ABI used can make a big difference. Solaris allows you to
choose either, but the default for the bundled gcc is still the
slower ia32/x87.

[kebabbert]

KRAFTMAN, ENERGYMAN

As I said earlier, Linux kernel is simple and uses an naive approach. It is easy to modify, whereas the Solaris kernel is complex and mature. You know that an complex construction is more difficult to modify, dont you? And as I said, Linux is found on large clusters because they only do one thing: number crunching and nothing else. It is easy to rip the Linux kernel apart to do that, due to it's naive approach.

For Linux bad scaling or not, there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel. Or do you disagree with Linux kernel developer Andrew Morton? No matter what you say, these links on bad Linux scaling will be there. They will not disappear. So if Linux scales so well, surely those links about bad scaling would not exist. On the other hand, I have found NO links about Solaris scaling bad. None. The question is if Linux scales badly (according some companies), not if Solaris scales badly, because it does not.

Of course you could rip the Solaris kernel apart to do number crunching, if you only knew it's elaborate and complicated structure. But that is not easy. Linux is good enough for that. But for ordinary OS usage, lots of links says that Linux scales bad.

And, "the less the code the better" - is Bull shit??? Erhm. Well, maybe you dont know that, but if you have much code, then there will be lots of potential bugs. It is easier to find bugs in less code than lots of code. And as Andrew Morton says, the Linux kernel is riddled with bugs.




But the good thing is that Linux and Solaris are quite similar, theyre both Unix-like. I started with Linux, but found back then, that Linux was quite immature, developed by some finnish teenager. And everything I learnt on Linux, I could immediately use on Solaris. Theyre both "Unix". The step between Windows and Plan9 would be huge. But for me, theyre quite similar. And if I get bored on Solaris, I just switch back to Linux - and everything Ive learnt on Solaris, I have with me to Linux. No loss of learning, nor time. Easy to switch back and forth, both OSes has gcc, gnu, vim/emacs, eclipse, KDE/gnome, vlc player, etc. No big difference. And there is also an Solaris distro which is similar to fedora (?) but with the Solaris kernel, everything else is almost the same.

Solaris and Linux share more together, than they differ. Easy to switch between them. No loss of time or learning.

[energyman]

kebabbert, it is ok. We realize it. You are a Solaris fanboy and no matter what, Solaris will be the greatest kernel for everything from your POV.

But your POV and reality don't intersect.
If Linux scales badly, why is it found from embedded controllers (where Solaris does not even run) to 512cpu/node machines?
Must be the bad scaling.
And why are Solaris,hpux,aix installations killed left and right?
Again, must be the bad scaling.

[kraftman]

@kebabbert

For Linux bad scaling or not, there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel.

Solaris is bugfree? There are lot of links saying that Solaris suck on desktop and on servers when compared to Linux.

Your theories are amazing . If I find more time I will repeat you more extensively.

@energyman,

Don't even worry about bad scaling, because it's total bullshit.

[kebabbert]

I dont really get it guys. I am trying to say that because Linux is available for large clusters, doesnt mean that Linux scales well. It only means that Linux is simple to tailor to that specific purpose. Those large clusters do not run ordinary Linux kernels. For instance, Ive read that Google are using heavily modified Linux. Do you really think that drivers for web cams are included in Googles Linux cluster, do you think it is commodity Linux? Google has lots of good Kernel developers, and theyve also developed their file system. If you think that those large clusters do ordinary OS usage, then you are wrong. They do specific task. Must I say this again?

For instance, Linux scaling on 64 CPUs:
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_27

Solaris has done that since v2.5.1 on E10k server. Now Solaris is v5.10. Seriously guys, Linux is a young kernel and it can in no way get the maturity as Solaris kernel has. It takes several tries and decades. SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris. A teenager couldnt do this. Dont you understand? Linus is always redesigning everything, a sign of bad design. Everybody knows that SUN has excellent engineers; unique ZFS, unique DTrace, unique Niagara CPU, etc. If they can not match a teenager kernel, then SUN deserves to die. Really.

And also, Linux is not compatible from release to release because of changing ABIs. Bad DESIGN. On some major Linux distros, they live 6 months, and then you have to upgrade or you loose support, and compatibility. That is NOT enterprise. SUN guarantees binary backward compatibility way back to Solaris v2.6. That is Enterprise.

Maybe you missed what the gurus Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie etc said about the Linux code? That is was naive and flawed. Also, Andrew Morton concurs that the Linux kernel deteriotes:
http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/



Linux is buggy but Solaris is stable (same hardware):
http://lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/...ver-Linux.html


Solaris delivers 36% higher performance than Linux says CIO Philadelphia Stock Exchange:
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar...6191p2,00.html


Linux sucks big time as a file server:
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...le.php/3745996



Linux company hits the boundaries and are forced to switch to Solaris:
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...286507,00.html




As long as I see links similar to these everywhere on the internet, I will continue to be a Solaris fanboy. But when I see links that Linux is better than Solaris I will switch back to Linux. I never see such links though. They always talk about cost, and no vendor Lock in. That is the reason they switch to Linux. Not because of Solaris didnt perform. Ah yes, I remember an article where a company switched to Linux and got higher performance. But, when you study that article, they threw out 800 old solaris 8 servers for 2400 modern x86 Linux servers. I would be seriously surprised if they didnt got higher performance. If they had switched to Solaris, they maybe would have got 36% higher performance than Linux.

I always support the best technology. For me it doesnt matter who wins, both are Unix. I dont have to relearn. My learning time is not wasted. They are similar.

Actually I am becoming interested in Plan9. Seems awesome tech. I am a technology geek. Doesnt matter which OS wins. Us all will reap the fruits!

[energyman]

have you even read your links?

Because it does not look like you did.
From the kernelnewbies article:
2.6.27, thanks to some rules on how the page cache can be used and the usage of RCU, the page cache will be able to do lookups (ie., "read" the page cache) without needing to take the mapping lock, and hence improving scalability. But it will only be noticeable on systems with lots of cpus (page fault speedup of 250x on a 64 way system have been measured).

that doesn't mean that linux didn't scale to 64 or beyond. It means that the new code has a 250x speedup on 64way sytems when it comes to page faults.

After that I didn't even bother to read the rest. Because I am pretty sure you didn't either.

[kraftman]

As I said earlier, Linux kernel is simple and uses an naive approach. It is easy to modify, whereas the Solaris kernel is complex and mature. You know that an complex construction is more difficult to modify, dont you? And as I said, Linux is found on large clusters because they only do one thing: number crunching and nothing else. It is easy to rip the Linux kernel apart to do that, due to it's naive approach.

In my opinion naive approach is what you call complex and mature. It's so stupid to keep with old crap then to make new, better design. Some day there will be nothing left then to rewrite some parts of your favorite system (maybe it's just happening, who knows?). You can say that DOS is mature, so why not just polish it then make something better? And simple is better. As you said Linux kernel is more simple.

...there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel. Or do you disagree with Linux kernel developer Andrew Morton? No matter what you say, these links on bad Linux scaling will be there. They will not disappear. So if Linux scales so well, surely those links about bad scaling would not exist. On the other hand, I have found NO links about Solaris scaling bad. None. The question is if Linux scales badly (according some companies), not if Solaris scales badly, because it does not.

It depends on who is testing. As I mentioned before some idiots don't know how to properly setup Linux system for such benchmarks and that's why those links exist (other ...people are basing on them).

Of course you could rip the Solaris kernel apart to do number crunching, if you only knew it's elaborate and complicated structure. But that is not easy. Linux is good enough for that. But for ordinary OS usage, lots of links says that Linux scales bad.

Stop reading bullshit. I saw great test some time before. Bsd user (that's why it's great benchmark, because it wasn't made by Linux fanboy etc.) benchmarked Linux and FreeBSD performance in MySQL. First time Linux scaled badly, but guy replaced one library and everything was ok. I'll give you link if I find.

And, "the less the code the better" - is Bull shit??? Erhm. Well, maybe you dont know that, but if you have much code, then there will be lots of potential bugs. It is easier to find bugs in less code than lots of code. And as Andrew Morton says, the Linux kernel is riddled with bugs.

Nope. I said that bullshit is what you said in previous post. On Linux works much more people then on Solaris, so they can easily find potential bugs. Btw. you just use some part of Linux kernel don't you? Devs pay great attention to core Linux kernel parts. You don't use many drivers and features which are in the kernel and can be potentially buggy.

I dont really get it guys. I am trying to say that because Linux is available for large clusters, doesnt mean that Linux scales well. It only means that Linux is simple to tailor to that specific purpose. Those large clusters do not run ordinary Linux kernels. For instance, Ive read that Google are using heavily modified Linux. Do you really think that drivers for web cams are included in Googles Linux cluster, do you think it is commodity Linux? Google has lots of good Kernel developers, and theyve also developed their file system. If you think that those large clusters do ordinary OS usage, then you are wrong. They do specific task. Must I say this again?

I said you before about scaling? Must I repeat? :>

Solaris has done that since v2.5.1 on E10k server. Now Solaris is v5.10. Seriously guys, Linux is a young kernel and it can in no way get the maturity as Solaris kernel has. It takes several tries and decades. SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris. A teenager couldnt do this. Dont you understand? Linus is always redesigning everything, a sign of bad design. Everybody knows that SUN has excellent engineers; unique ZFS, unique DTrace, unique Niagara CPU, etc. If they can not match a teenager kernel, then SUN deserves to die. Really.

Energy man already answered you. Everybody knows that Solaris is loosing it's market share. Only ZFS and DTrace keep it still alive.

SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris.

You said that redesigning is bad.

And also, Linux is not compatible from release to release because of changing ABIs. Bad DESIGN. On some major Linux distros, they live 6 months, and then you have to upgrade or you loose support, and compatibility. That is NOT enterprise. SUN guarantees binary backward compatibility way back to Solaris v2.6. That is Enterprise.

There are companies which gave you support for years. Linux is not compatible with what?

Maybe you missed what the gurus Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie etc said about the Linux code? That is was naive and flawed. Also, Andrew Morton concurs that the Linux kernel deteriotes:
http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/

What gurus? Don't base your suggestions on such idiotic opinions. Find out yourself. And Adrew was talking about -mm tree. I'd love to hear objective opinions other system devs.

Linux is buggy but Solaris is stable (same hardware)

Solaris is buggy, every system is buggy and Linux is stable. Guess what system has highest uptime? :>

As long as I see links similar to these everywhere on the internet, I will continue to be a Solaris fanboy. But when I see links that Linux is better than Solaris I will switch back to Linux. I never see such links though. They always talk about cost, and no vendor Lock in. That is the reason they switch to Linux. Not because of Solaris didnt perform. Ah yes, I remember an article where a company switched to Linux and got higher performance. But, when you study that article, they threw out 800 old solaris 8 servers for 2400 modern x86 Linux servers. I would be seriously surprised if they didnt got higher performance. If they had switched to Solaris, they maybe would have got 36% higher performance than Linux.

I always support the best technology. For me it doesnt matter who wins, both are Unix. I dont have to relearn. My learning time is not wasted. They are similar.

Actually I am becoming interested in Plan9. Seems awesome tech. I am a technology geek. Doesnt matter which OS wins. Us all will reap the fruits!

I just suggest you to find some more objective benchmarks and to replace that slow crap to Linux. I never saw Solaris faster then Linux. You can even feel it yourself. Try them on desktop. Look for DNS, MySQL tests etc.

EDIT:

And you're just attacking Linux. What it gives you? Psychical comfort?

[kebabbert]

Kraftman,

You know, it would be nice if you backed up your statements with some links? So far, your statements have been about your opinion with no hard facts. How you wish things would be. To me, opionions doesnt really matter. As long as I see hard links from companies complaining about Linux bad scaling, beeing unstable, etc - your opinions doesnt really matter. Ive presented links.

Seriously, I support the best technology and if you can present evidence that Linux is better I will switch back to Linux. I am a tech geek. This far, everywhere Solaris and Linux is compared, Solaris is always the most stable, has higher performance, etc on the internet.

It doesnt really matter if Solaris is dying or not to me, I only use the best technology. Why use inferior, simpler technology? I could use Windows instead. But it seems that Solaris is gaining more and more ground actually. That is maybe the reason why Linux people always attack Solaris. "Is solaris on it's death bed?", "Solaris should die", etc. I wonder why they do that. Does it give them psychic comfort? But hey, they attack everyone else too; "openbsd developers are masturbating monkeys" etc

In concluding, I would like to say it's been nice to read your opinions. But please present some facts instead.






Energyman,
Nice that youve read at least one of my links. That link you cite, shows that Linux had really bad scaling and now it is catching up. In other words, that link is a testimony that Linux were 250 times slower earlier on 64 cpus. You dont see a contradiction here? You state that Linux scales well, but it was 250 times slower than it should have been. To me, thats a sign of bad design. But I understand if you dont agree with that.

(come on, 250 times slower??? how could Linux be so bad in that aspect???)

[kraftman]

Kraftman,

You know, it would be nice if you backed up your statements with some links? So far, your statements have been about your opinion with no hard facts. How you wish things would be. To me, opionions doesnt really matter. As long as I see hard links from companies complaining about Linux bad scaling, beeing unstable, etc - your opinions doesnt really matter. Ive presented links.

You backed up your statements only on such tales of mystical links? Linux bad scaling and unstable. Do you have personal experience with this? What companies? Sun Microsystems? Oh, maybe Google or Amazon. Wait, hundreds of porn sites. Which of them uses Solaris?

Seriously, I support the best technology and if you can present evidence that Linux is better I will switch back to Linux. I am a tech geek. This far, everywhere Solaris and Linux is compared, Solaris is always the most stable, has higher performance, etc on the internet.

I saw something different, but it doesn't matter. You are always the smartest, the coolest and you know always everything when compared to others. Better stick with Solaris, seriously.

It doesnt really matter if Solaris is dying or not to me, I only use the best technology. Why use inferior, simpler technology? I could use Windows instead. But it seems that Solaris is gaining more and more ground actually. That is maybe the reason why Linux people always attack Solaris. "Is solaris on it's death bed?", "Solaris should die", etc. I wonder why they do that. Does it give them psychic comfort? But hey, they attack everyone else too; "openbsd developers are masturbating monkeys" etc

If you consider that I meant Windows when I said about simplicity I recommend you to use PS3 - it's really simple. Why do you turn everything inside out? You attacked Linux here.

Nice that youve read at least one of my links. That link you cite, shows that Linux had really bad scaling and now it is catching up. In other words, that link is a testimony that Linux were 250 times slower earlier on 64 cpus. You dont see a contradiction here? You state that Linux scales well, but it was 250 times slower than it should have been. To me, thats a sign of bad design. But I understand if you dont agree with that.

(come on, 250 times slower??? how could Linux be so bad in that aspect???)

Maybe someone who did previous tests was 250 times dumber? Or Linux was 250 times slower then new Linux, but still faster then Solaris?

[energyman]

you provided some links you didn't read yourself.
Then you provided some pro-Solaris success stories. But if you look at Redhat's or Novell's sites you will see success stories the other way round en masse.

There are two very simple facts:
a) UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) is loosing marketshare to Linux fast.
b) The Top 500 supercomputers are dominated by linux. Second place with 400 installations less, AIX. Solaris. 1. Some years ago, Solaris was the dominator.
c) yes R&K critized Linux. But they critized a lot over the years.