Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: DragonFlyBSD Improves Performance Against Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,541

    Default DragonFlyBSD Improves Performance Against Linux

    Phoronix: DragonFlyBSD Improves Performance Against Linux

    Benchmarks coming out of the BSD camp are showing that the soon-to-be-released DragonFlyBSD 3.2 is almost as fast as Scientific Linux (RHEL) 6.2 in at least one real-world workload...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    So they came in second to an aging Enterprise Linux distribution and didn't even use the current version of that... but I'll let that slide because......FreeBSD....and NetBSD.. . ouch.

    I know their performance is bad (partially because they hate the GPL 3 imposing all of that horrible Freedom and don't want to use a recent version of GCC), but I didn't know it had decayed to this point.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Disclaimer: I am a df dev.

    """
    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    So they came in second to an aging Enterprise Linux distribution and didn't even use the current version of that... but I'll let that slide because......FreeBSD....and NetBSD.. . ouch.
    """


    Scientific linux is based on RHEL - which also means that kernel/c library etc. versions are almost identical from release to release. So 6.2.x vs 6.3.x is practically irrelevant.

    And how is this "aging" since it is the latest one? Or are you saying that the test should have picked a non-enterprise distribution in general, like fedora or ubuntu or something?


    """
    I know their performance is bad (partially because they hate the GPL 3 imposing all of that horrible Freedom and don't want to use a recent version of GCC), but I didn't know it had decayed to this point.
    """

    This statement is just incorrect in so many ways. Due to the high level of parallelism in the test (many core machines), this is less
    of a indicator of 'performance decaying' as 'how far the different systems have advanced to take advantage of SMP & chip level SMT, etc'
    recall at one point, they did not support these things, and have all required major modifications (aka years of hard work) by all involved
    to get to their respective levels of advancement at present, with much to go for all involved.

    And being a database test, this has much more to do with scheduler algorithms, IO and virtual memory subsystems etc. than compiler optimization - eg. the test is system/IO/memory bound, and not compute bound, so compiler is less of a factor.

    The benchmarking was initially prompted by a major change in how postgres handles its memory structures - a change which
    has an extremely negative impact on how many unix virtual memory systems have traditionally been implemented - aka
    a questionable change to make - and some of the other non-dragonfly OS's have not been adapted to cope with this.
    This was a very recent change in postgres, so that is not a 'omg bsds are so old and not shiny' thing. So while it is good to
    see dragonfly competitive with Linux, this should be kept in mind. IIRC FreeBSD had a different workaround to avoid this problem
    but not 100%.

    R.e. GCC: firstly: dragonfly uses GCC4.4 - which is the same GCC major release as in RHEL6.. and 4.7 has been imported to switch
    over after this release. Also - performance tests indicate that clang (which FreeBSD will be switching to in 10.x) - is superior to gcc
    in some performance tests, but slower in others - so in other words, they are extermely competitive:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTE5OTM

    So really, I'm not sure what your compiler / gpl3 statements are in reference to here.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfcat View Post
    Also - performance tests indicate that clang (which FreeBSD will be switching to in 10.x) - is superior to gcc
    in some performance tests, but slower in others - so in other words, they are extermely competitive:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTE5OTM
    I someone who regularly benchmarks clang/llvm vs GCC I can say I've not seen any results (atleast not as recent as this year, before that my memory may fail me) where clang/llvm beats GCC where I use -O3, which is the optimization level where the compilers strive to produce the fastest code. And as we can see from the results you linked to, whenever -O3 is used GCC is 'superior' to clang/llvm, and also in most of the cases where no optimization level is set (which really doesn't count though as it is worthless) and the only times clang/llvm beats GCC is when there is no -O optimization level which means GCC defaults to -O0 which is 'no optimization' and aimed for debugging.

    Typically my tests results in 5-20% better performance with GCC versus clang/llvm, and when I've tried the GCC 4.8 versus LLVM 3.2 snapshots GCC has actually increased the performance gap (that said, snapshots are anything but conclusive). It should be noted that my benchmarks are all on x86_64, I have no idea of how x86 or for example ARM architectures compare.

    On another note I find Dragonfly most interesting from a technical standpoint, keep up the good work!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I someone who regularly benchmarks clang/llvm vs GCC I can say I've not seen any results (atleast not as recent as this year, before that my memory may fail me) where clang/llvm beats GCC where I use -O3
    Well, if you compare GCC 4.4 to LLVM 3.2 it might be different.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I someone who regularly benchmarks clang/llvm vs GCC I can say I've not seen any results (atleast not as recent as this year, before that my memory may fail me) where clang/llvm beats GCC where I use -O3, which is the optimization level where the compilers strive to produce the fastest code. And as we can see from the results you linked to, whenever -O3 is used GCC is 'superior' to clang/llvm, and also in most of the cases where no optimization level is set (which really doesn't count though as it is worthless) and the only times clang/llvm beats GCC is when there is no -O optimization level which means GCC defaults to -O0 which is 'no optimization' and aimed for debugging.

    Typically my tests results in 5-20% better performance with GCC versus clang/llvm, and when I've tried the GCC 4.8 versus LLVM 3.2 snapshots GCC has actually increased the performance gap (that said, snapshots are anything but conclusive). It should be noted that my benchmarks are all on x86_64, I have no idea of how x86 or for example ARM architectures compare.

    On another note I find Dragonfly most interesting from a technical standpoint, keep up the good work!
    Think of it this way: GCC is faster now, but it will be far harder to make any significant long term performance enhancements, because its design is more or less set in stone. LLVM/CLANG will be significantly faster in a few years, and have better toolkit support to boot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Yes you're right. Linux rox, and has no scalability issue, it's well known. And postgresql scales easily on latest linux kernels. Oh wait !
    http://http://lwn.net/Articles/518329/

  8. #8

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by enjolras View Post
    Yes you're right. Linux rox, and has no scalability issue, it's well known. And postgresql scales easily on latest linux kernels. Oh wait ! http://http://lwn.net/Articles/518329/
    Only two posts and a big fail. You linked to unreleased version. It will be nice to see some newer Linux distro rather than old SL. Btw. I always wondered why it'sFreeBSD pushed so hard rather than DragonFlyBSD. The later is not only faster, has great community, but it's also much more innovative. In contrary freebsd community are just envy fanboys and trolls.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Only two posts and a big fail. You linked to unreleased version. It will be nice to see some newer Linux distro rather than old SL. Btw. I always wondered why it'sFreeBSD pushed so hard rather than DragonFlyBSD. The later is not only faster, has great community, but it's also much more innovative. In contrary freebsd community are just envy fanboys and trolls.
    Why are you always bitching about FreeBSD/Solaris/insert-your-non-Linux-OS-here? (I'm surprised you have something kind to say about DragonFlyBSD).
    You criticize FreeBSD for having a fanboy comunity, but you always sound like a fanboy yourself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Only two posts and a big fail. You linked to unreleased version. It will be nice to see some newer Linux distro rather than old SL. Btw. I always wondered why it'sFreeBSD pushed so hard rather than DragonFlyBSD. The later is not only faster, has great community, but it's also much more innovative. In contrary freebsd community are just envy fanboys and trolls.
    It would be interesting to see newer Linux Distro's benchmarked, but SL is a good comparison. In terms of server operating systems, the SL tested is basically present day. Debian and anything compiled with Redhat(CentOS and SL) all use similar kernels. You don't see too many (if any) popular Linux server Distros use the newer kernels.

Posting Permissions

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