Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,426

    Default Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

    Phoronix: Debian: kFreeBSD 9.0 Kernel Competing Against Linux 3.2

    The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project has been quite interesting as one of the official Debian operating system ports. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD pairs the FreeBSD kernel with the Debian GNU user-land so that users can enjoy their traditional Debian applications while taking advantage of the FreeBSD kernel. With the recently released FreeBSD 9.0 kernel having worked its way into Debian Wheezy, how is the FreeBSD 9.0 kernel performance compared to the Linux 3.2 kernel? This article provides those benchmarks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17120

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Some analysis as to what caused those huge differences in performance would be welcome. Especially as, to my knowledge, several of those were just CPU-bound tests that should have relatively little impact from the kernel in use, unless there's something pathologically wrong with the CPU scheduler or memory manager subsystems of the kernel. I mean, I'd expect there to potentially be huge differences in I/O throughput or something that's heavily dependent on the kernel's algorithms of choice, but not for something that is mostly a test of the system's hardware.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Some analysis as to what caused those huge differences in performance would be welcome. Especially as, to my knowledge, several of those were just CPU-bound tests that should have relatively little impact from the kernel in use, unless there's something pathologically wrong with the CPU scheduler or memory manager subsystems of the kernel. I mean, I'd expect there to potentially be huge differences in I/O throughput or something that's heavily dependent on the kernel's algorithms of choice, but not for something that is mostly a test of the system's hardware.
    I doubt soft updates was enabled on UFS. Also, I suspect that the NAS parallel benchmarks are likely showing some sort of configuration issue. CG.B for instance is exactly half that of Linux. Nobu's comment about the kFreeBSD system having only 1 socket available to it could be correct.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Different hardware? sorry, but this can't be called a benchmark ... or at least, you can't compare both stuff, *again*, when it came to comparing *BSD to a Linux, you did a bad developed benchmark.
    Well, at least you didn't make the "mistake" of comparing ZFS vs ext4, and instead used ufs2
    Last edited by vertexSymphony; 03-07-2012 at 12:47 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Windows reference

    Sometimes it would be nice to have Windows in there as a reference ..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brunis View Post
    Sometimes it would be nice to have Windows in there as a reference ..
    That's not relevant here. The point of the benchmark is not to make an objective speed scale, but just to compare kFreeBSD with Linux kernel (even though there are some doubtful conditions and such), so the Windows reference is unneeded here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    105

    Default

    good test. i was curious on this. i tryed kfreebsd then, but it was very broken for me. but expected more difference for linux.

  8. #8

    Question Apples to oranges

    Can you also perform the tests on identical hardware?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Code:
    Processor:
     - Debian kFreeBSD:	AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
     - Debian Linux:	2 x AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
    Really? Is this right? Am I seeing things?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    Code:
    Processor:
     - Debian kFreeBSD:    AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
     - Debian Linux:    2 x AMD Opteron 2384 @ 2.70GHz (8 Cores)
    Really? Is this right? Am I seeing things?

    Ditto. Same hardware, but Debian GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't properly expose multiple sockets for PTS to read.

Posting Permissions

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