Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux
Phoronix: Debian Wheezy GNU/kFreeBSD: Slower Than Linux
With Debian 7.0 "Wheezy" set to be frozen soon, I took the opportunity to run some new benchmarks of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, the Debian OS variant using the FreeBSD kernel rather than Linux, to compare it to Debian GNU/Linux as well as Ubuntu Linux and PC-BSD/FreeBSD 9.0.
I see a pattern emerging, it seems consistent for BSD to be a little slower than Linux
Probably because BSD does not get as much attention and developers when it comes to the parts Michael tested, and thus those parts are not as optimized on the BSD-side as on the Linux-side.
Originally Posted by disi
Or the BSD kernel itself is inherently slower than Linux?
Originally Posted by Xake
Wouldn't surprise me; there's been a ridiculous amount of investment in Linux lately. Sure, you can't just fix any problem by throwing money at it, but at least in computer science, you can develop new algorithms with really impressive average and worst-case performance. I know they're very careful about algorithm selection and use in the Linux kernel, and that's one of the main areas where Linux beats out pretty much everyone.
Since these tests mainly benchmark CPU based operations, this comes as no surprise that Linux would be faster. It has an amazing scheduler; BSD doesn't.
These benchmarks aren't testing I/O performance (disk) or GPU performance, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll bet that Linux is still faster for GPU performance, but it remains to be seen how they'd stack up on the disk I/O front. I'm not so confident that Linux would take the cake there, because ext4 at least is pretty slow in some of the tests we've run on it. It's a pretty lopsided filesystem: some tests, it performs amazingly well; others, it falls down completely. I'd actually want to see how XFS stands up against BSD's filesystem (ZFS, I guess). XFS is not going to blow you away with amazing numbers in any one test, but it's designed so that it pretty much can't get into a horrible worst-case performance scenario... so you aren't going to see it performing at only 10% the speed of ZFS on any of the benchmarks, either. It'll be right up there with it, and occasionally excelling.
Linux has no real filesystem, has it?
I just setup my laptop with ZFSOnLinux as root fs and Gentoo last weekend. Works fine so far except of grub2 didn't like to boot the pool directly, so it needed an extra 100MB boot partition.
As soon as I decided on a GUI (DE) etc. I'll try to run some benchmarks...
Damn troll. It has many real file systems unlike others. Who cares about your configuration?
Originally Posted by disi
clearly the x264 and the ffmpeg tests assuming 100% CPU use at the time tells you all you need to know , Debian GNU/kFreeBSD has some serious bottlenecks that NEED looking at and sorting ASAP.
Originally Posted by allquixotic
x264 and the ffmpeg tests, and even Chris Wilson's SNA hardware-specific optimisations and micro optimizations all show you the massive benefits and the need today to actually benchmark and re-write all your separate code routines and macro's etc to get far better throughput and also remove code cruft on a consistently regular basis, writing "good enough if it works" code is clearly not good enough today, you need to be better and make the time to write quality benchmarked code and actually test it for speed as well as correctness before you commit that latest patch.
Last edited by popper; 06-25-2012 at 08:13 PM.
If BSD is so much slower than Linux, how did that article a while back come about that showed BSD was faster at running native Linux games?
4 times - a little slower? :)
Oh yeah, it's 1.5-2 times slower in quite many tests and by 4 whole times slower in openssl. "A little slower". Hmmph.
Originally Posted by disi
Though I'm fail to understand how exactly *BSD guys managed to get such a bad results on same hardware. They managed to both get crapwrecked CPU scheduler and poor syscall servicing times? Broken hardware initialization? Or how they could lose whole 4 times in openssl which is more or less computational test? It does not even requires servicing many syscalls!
The OpenSSL result is particularly interesting. But I couldn't reproduce it on my own (AMD Opteron) systems. Using latest Debian 1.0.1c-3 packages, I ran 'openssl speed' which includes an RSA 4096-bit signing benchmark. The other output from this command (compile options) is helpful to see if trying to compare benchmarks. A 2.6GHz Opteron 285 (twin, dual-core) system with Linux 2.6.32 scored 73.7 sign/s whereas a 2.2GHz Opteron 248 (single, dual-core) GNU/kFreeBSD system (9.0-1-amd64 kernel) scored 62.1 sign/s. I assume the benchmark runs on a single core and thus these results are almost precisely in-line with the relative clock speeds. Certainly no 4x performance reduction seen.
Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE
I don't know how the benchmark for PTS works, but I'm curious why the test result panel says "OpenSSL 1.0.0e" which is not the (recently) packaged Debian version.
Otherwise, I'd guess the cause of this is something hardware-specific, with this particular CPU not reaching full performance under this FreeBSD kernel version. I would check for anything related to CPU scaling, power draw (which is nice to see in many Phoronix benchmarks), or otherwise see if FreeBSD have already made any changes in HEAD / kfreebsd-10 relating to this hardware.