Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 122

Thread: FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,133

    Default FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

    Canonical will be releasing Ubuntu 9.10 at the end of next month while the final release of FreeBSD 8.0 is also expected within the next few weeks. With these two popular free software operating systems both having major updates coming out at around the same time, we decided it warranted some early benchmarking as we see how the FreeBSD 8.0 and Ubuntu 9.10 performance compares. For looking more at the FreeBSD performance we also have included test results from FreeBSD 7.2, the current stable release. In this article are mostly the server and workstation oriented benchmarks with the testing being carried out on a dual AMD Opteron quad-core workstation.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14219

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    FreeBSD got raped :P

  3. #3

    Default

    Between FreeBSD 8.0 and Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 6, the BSD [COLOR=#234865 ! important][COLOR=#234865 ! important]operating [COLOR=#234865 ! important] system[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] did substantially better. However, this is to no surprise as with Ubuntu 9.10 using the Linux 2.6.31 kernel and EXT4 file-system we have witnessed some performance regressions with SQLite when carrying out database insertions.
    It's not sane calling some change a regression. Switch to writeback mode and it should be much faster. Don't spread FUD

    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...92&postcount=3
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-28-2009 at 04:13 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's not sane calling some change a regression. Switch to writeback mode and it should be much faster. Don't spread FUD

    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...92&postcount=3
    That completely solved the performance regression here (I can't compare it to BSD though, since I don't have it.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's not sane calling some change a regression. Switch to writeback mode and it should be much faster. Don't spread FUD

    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...92&postcount=3
    A regression is simple to define.

    A regression is a change in behaviour that occurs between a configuration under test and a secondary related configuration under test. The regression can be positive or negative, but it is the change in behaviour that is important.

    If there is a document somewhere about what has been turned on or off in development version and what will make it to the final production version, then I agree that it can be communicated. If one doesn't exist, then it is a fair comparison since removing it is a black art that isn't communicated to anyone.

    Regards,

    Matthew

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    "When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most. So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, use `mount -o data=writeback'. " http://lwn.net/Articles/203915/
    Meaning the writeback option increases performance at the cost of data integrity.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    A regression is simple to define.

    A regression is a change in behaviour that occurs between a configuration under test and a secondary related configuration under test. The regression can be positive or negative, but it is the change in behaviour that is important.

    If there is a document somewhere about what has been turned on or off in development version and what will make it to the final production version, then I agree that it can be communicated. If one doesn't exist, then it is a fair comparison since removing it is a black art that isn't communicated to anyone.

    Regards,

    Matthew

    They benchmarked distro using Ext3 in writeback mode and distro using Ext4 in ordered (or some other). Distro using Ext3 and writeback was faster in *SQL and distro using Ext4 and ordered was slower.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    They benchmarked distro using Ext3 in writeback mode and distro using Ext4 in ordered (or some other). Distro using Ext3 and writeback was faster in *SQL and distro using Ext4 and ordered was slower.
    Yes that is clear. One thing that keeps come up again and again is that there is an assumption that most users will have sufficient knowledge or care enough to switch between filesystems or tweak between options.


    In the same way, most Linux-heads abstract XP vs Vista vs Win7 as "fast", "dog-slow", "mostly better", they don't go down into that level of details. For a Linux head they would look at the top level "is it faster" and go with XP or wait for Win7 if they _had_ to use a Microsoft OS.

    This is no different. If someone is looking at writing an application using something like SQLite, they generally either won't have complete access to the system (hosted server or end-user system). Consequently their view of supporting different OSes will be based on a high level

    "yeah, Ubuntu-9.04 is faster, I'd recommend you my app on this",
    rather than

    "yeah, if you reconfigure the filesystem by modifying the kernel options with this string and changing your fstab entries, you will get good performance with Ubuntu 8-10."


    If you have ever supported software, you know that you will *always* go for the first comment and push people away from 8-10. It is all about domain's of expertise and variables that you can control. Most people simply won't get down to modifying those options on a system. Their view outside _their_ domain of expertise is mostly a black box.

    The key driver for Michael's performance reviews and comparisons is to drive awareness of system differences. It is bare and simple facts. It is the upstream maintainers who are making decisions on behalf of users. If they have done their jobs right, they are balancing the experience of the end user, the safety of the data and so on. Some users tune, the majority will not and inherit the maintainers view of how things should work. There are many cases of Michael's testing having beneficial results ultimately for the community when the numbers are groked and a correct decision made.

    My standard response here is that if there is an accessible collection of directions for changing the configuration then you may have a strong argument for changing the testing. People who live and breathe filesystems assume that everybody knows how to tune the filesystem, but those who don't need to have their hands held very tightly.

    Do you know of any accessible guides for tuning filesystems?

    Matt
    Last edited by mtippett; 09-28-2009 at 04:08 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    Do you know of any accessible guides for tuning filesystems?
    For newbies or for you? I don't know any. I don't even do it myself, because defaults are enough for me.

    @Risner

    GCC 4.4 includes support for processor features like SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, and more that are not present in GCC 4.2 (which is used by FreeBSD.)
    Aren't some flags have to be specified to use such features? And does opteron supports all of them? :>
    Last edited by kraftman; 09-28-2009 at 04:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Tell that to the average Ubuntu user...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •