Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Benchmarks Of FreeBSD 8.1 RC2

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    and with 'better' you mean more open security holes, less performance, missing features and of course the 'it is better because we say so' philosophy.
    Any links to these "security holes" that don't get fixed and that are part of the core OS? I'm not talking 3rd party vendors (apache, php, mysql, etc...). I've found the FreeBSD team to be very responsive with either binary patches and/or source patches.

    Megh, "performance" is very subjective. Load up some bloated Gnome Linux distro and your system will crawl. For my daily tasks FreeBSD is perfectly capable and "fast". Switching between Gentoo, Debian and FreeBSD all running XFCE I notice no real-life differences. Anyways, that was my opinion.

    "Missing features". For what I do with it isn't missing much. Sure it would be nice if Oracle and other vendors supported it and I really don't understand why more commercial vendors don't support it. It's a much easier target to hit. There is a reason the RedHat's of the world don't change kernel versions very often and make their own patches or back-port patches which IMHO is just causing major fragmentation.

    I said it's better for me and I'm happy with it. Ultimate performance isn't my goal and isn't the goal of most enterprise users. It's for the most part a very stable system.

    I'm not saying FreeBSD doesn't have issues. A smaller supported hardware pool being a major one, but for the devices it supports it normally just works.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Although we've had a no real religious debate here as a result of the article, I'd like to suggest something. **NOTE** that this will require work from a FreeBSD person.

    When 8.1 is released, we do the following...

    The FreeBSD person creates a blog page with a tuning guide to make FreeBSD shine in the benchmarks. The rules are as follows...

    1) The tuning guide is explicit enough for a reasonably technical person (but not FreeBSD guru) to follow and create a customized FreeBSD for the purposes stated.
    2) The person hosting the page provides Michael support in preparing the system for benchmarking following the directions.
    3) Any new tests that the FreeBSD person wants to have executed are worked out/contributed/made available prior to the benchmarking run.

    The intent here is to provide an answer ensure the following themes don't appear in the response to the 8.1 Final benchmark run.

    1) The system wasn't tuned, FreeBSD is much better after tuning
    2) The tests are unfair, there are better, more realistic tests to run

    Now of course, I haven't run this past Michael, but I am sure that it will be acceptable.

    The result set would be "Most recent shipping Ubuntu", FreeBSD 8.1 Stock, FreeBSD Tuned.

    Any FreeBSD takers?

    Matthew

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhavenn View Post
    Personally, as an overall package FreeBSD is still a better system and it's eco-system is very developer friendly with solid documentation and a well defined set of "core" libraries.
    Personally, as na overall package Linux was and still is a much better system. Linux documentation improved a lot! Btw. I found there's some improportion in this case - Linux, even years ago with probably much worse documentation had much more devs and was developed much more rapidly then Freebsd with "superb" (yeah, right...) documentation.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhavenn View Post
    Any links to these "security holes" that don't get fixed and that are part of the core OS? I'm not talking 3rd party vendors (apache, php, mysql, etc...). I've found the FreeBSD team to be very responsive with either binary patches and/or source patches.
    I remember some of the local exploits which were known and weren't fixed for long. I'm sure Linux devs are much more responsive when comes to fixing security bugs. There was also an article where it was shown Linux code quality is much better - less bugs in proportion to lines of code.

    I said it's better for me and I'm happy with it. Ultimate performance isn't my goal and isn't the goal of most enterprise users. It's for the most part a very stable system.
    Afaik most enterprise "users" don't use *bsd.

  5. #15

    Default

    I found there's some improportion in this case
    Disproportion of course...

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    freebsd fanbois always claim that freebsd is faster.
    and there are always benchmarks disproving them
    and then they always claim some fault, like 'this is the wrong version' or 'that was last version. X+1 is so much faster'.
    they also always get a knot in their panties because of softupdates.

    2003 Fefe tested all and everybody against everybody and Freebsd sucked.
    In 2006 Fefe tested all and everybody - and Freebse still sucked.
    2010 Phoronix tests Freebse and it... sucks. No surprise. And no surprise about all the fanboi noise.

    http://bulk.fefe.de/lk2006/talk.pdf

    freebse is slow.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default

    When linux gets raped by windows benchmarks, linux fanboys do the same as freebsd fanboys at this point. I personally enjoy using freebsd over linux.

    I find freebsd defaults to take less tweaking to get the secuirty I want, I love the ports system and the documentation. If there is one thing I laugh at the most when people talk about linux is when they say it has good documentation. The Freebsd handbook http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/ is the reason I took up freebsd over a linux distro in the first place.

    If speed and these shitty benchmarks is all that makes a system good, We should all be moving to windows 7 and OS X.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    So, allow me to summarize those many pages:
    FreeBSD 8.1-RC2 has 99% identical preformance to FreeBSD 8.0.
    Ubuntu beats FreeBSD by a very small amount in most tests.

    Sometimes I wish there was more clue on the front page to let me know if something interesting did indeed lurk within, or if (as usual) it's all quite predictably similar.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soupbowl View Post
    When linux gets raped by windows benchmarks
    Where? Because of compiz enabled?

    I find freebsd defaults to take less tweaking to get the secuirty I want, I love the ports system and the documentation. If there is one thing I laugh at the most when people talk about linux is when they say it has good documentation. The Freebsd handbook http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/ is the reason I took up freebsd over a linux distro in the first place.
    Didn't you know documentation itself is dead? There's LDP and Linux has much better documentation then before (I don't know if it's better then freebsd one, but you probably don't know if it's not).

    If speed and these shitty benchmarks is all that makes a system good, We should all be moving to windows 7 and OS X.
    Are you kidding? Windows 7 and OS X are slow. Energyman wasn't talking about Phoronix benchmarks. Btw. you want me to waste my CPU's cores by using one of those OS? :P Even Apple uses Linux as a primary OS on their servers. It seems Linux is faster then OS X in OpenGL. Which Phoronix benchmark shows Windows 7 (except 3D, but someone has proven it's because of compiz) or OS X being faster?

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post
    So, allow me to summarize those many pages:
    FreeBSD 8.1-RC2 has 99% identical preformance to FreeBSD 8.0.
    Ubuntu beats FreeBSD by a very small amount in most tests.
    Good joke. gzip, povray, dcraw, mafft, himeno, threaded i/o (lol, what a difference) those aren't very small or even small amounts.

Posting Permissions

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