DragonFlyBSD 5.2, TrueOS 18.03, FreeBSD 11.1, Ubuntu 16.04/18.04 & Clear Linux Tests

[phoronix]

Phoronix: DragonFlyBSD 5.2, TrueOS 18.03, FreeBSD 11.1, Ubuntu 16.04/18.04 & Clear Linux Tests

This week I posted some benchmarks looking at the Meltdown mitigation impact on BSD vs. Linux as well as some tests of DragonFly's stabilized HAMMER2 while for your viewing pleasure this weekend are a variety of general BSD vs. Linux benchmarks while using the newly-released DragonFlyBSD 5.2, TrueOS 18.03, FreeBSD 11.1, Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, Ubuntu 18.04, and Intel's Clear Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=26233

[stan]

How can ZFS be both more full of functionality and faster than EXT4? The BTRFS apologists keep saying that's impossible, that you need to sacrifice performance to get features. Well, ZFS on FreeBSD proves them wrong. Though that's pretty much the only thing FreeBSD has got going for it, looking at these benchmarks.

[hax0r]

*BSD edging out Linux in storage and networking is nothing new, *BSD are commonly used in enterprise storage solutions and where high performance tcp/ip stack is needed, almost every DDoS mitigation hardware runs *BSD, and look at Netflix, it is no coincidence. Linux desktop users are always in worst position, not only there is no good choice for filesystem or fast tcp/ip, they suffer most from poor kernel scheduler choice, CFS, that is configured for workloads with >1024 cpus and provide poor performance for typical audio/video production or gaming. Simple spikes in I/O load can hike iowait% out of roof and cause stutter. You can give up your freedom and join NSA data mining botnet by installing Windows 10 or macos, or keep suffering GNU/Linux fate. Con Kolivas also stated that he doesn't plan on updating CK patchset for 4.16 https://ck-hack.blogspot.com/, 2018 is quickly turning out to be worst Linux Desktop Year.

[jacob]

How can ZFS be both more full of functionality and faster than EXT4? The BTRFS apologists keep saying that's impossible, that you need to sacrifice performance to get features. Well, ZFS on FreeBSD proves them wrong. Though that's pretty much the only thing FreeBSD has got going for it, looking at these benchmarks.

Unless I missed something, these benchmarks don't say anything about ZFS being faster. BTW by suggesting that a piece of software has "apologists" and is thus somehow akin to a crime, you put yourself immediately to the ridiculous fanboy category.

[nuetzel]

*BSD edging out Linux in storage and networking is nothing new, *BSD are commonly used in enterprise storage solutions and where high performance tcp/ip stack is needed, almost every DDoS mitigation hardware runs *BSD, and look at Netflix, it is no coincidence...

And *BSD run the super computers of the world... *LOL*

[jacob]

And *BSD run the super computers of the world... *LOL*

Whether it's on supercomputers, virtually all the biggest websites, databases and enterprise servers, about 80% of the world's smartphones or IoT devices, FreeBSD is nowhere to be found. Load balancers, routers, firewalls etc. often run OpenBSD, though, but that's a very different community and an OS designed with clear practical goals in mind. They actually focus on developing their software and discuss how to best achieve their stated objectives. Meanwhile FreeBSD focuses on SJW gender pronouns and discusses how much they hate Linux. It's true however that once upon a time, Netflix used to run FreeBSD. Don't take that away from the cult, it's about the one and only thing they can reasonably brag about ;-)

[F.Ultra]

How can ZFS be both more full of functionality and faster than EXT4? The BTRFS apologists keep saying that's impossible, that you need to sacrifice performance to get features. Well, ZFS on FreeBSD proves them wrong. Though that's pretty much the only thing FreeBSD has got going for it, looking at these benchmarks.

There where two benchmarks in this article that where IO heavy (the initial create stage of the Compile Bench and the PostgreSQL tests) and on both of these FreeBSD performed way worse then any version of Linux with EXT4. So what we see here is that ZFS is slower than EXT4, but that is nothing strange and actually the expected outcome. No one chooses ZFS for the performance.

[F.Ultra]

Whether it's on supercomputers, virtually all the biggest websites, databases and enterprise servers, about 80% of the world's smartphones or IoT devices, FreeBSD is nowhere to be found. Load balancers, routers, firewalls etc. often run OpenBSD, though, but that's a very different community and an OS designed with clear practical goals in mind. They actually focus on developing their software and discuss how to best achieve their stated objectives. Meanwhile FreeBSD focuses on SJW gender pronouns and discusses how much they hate Linux. It's true however that once upon a time, Netflix used to run FreeBSD. Don't take that away from the cult, it's about the one and only thing they can reasonably brag about ;-)

I think that the reason why you see so many firewalls and load balances running FreeBSD is because these companies can utilize the work that the FreeBSD developers have put in while still being able to release a proprietary product. They most definitively does not choose FreeBSD due to it's "high performance network stack" since all the packet switching on these products are done by FPGA fabric and not by the main CPU.

[jacob]

I think that the reason why you see so many firewalls and load balances running FreeBSD is because these companies can utilize the work that the FreeBSD developers have put in while still being able to release a proprietary product. They most definitively does not choose FreeBSD due to it's "high performance network stack" since all the packet switching on these products are done by FPGA fabric and not by the main CPU.

Firstly I didn't say they use FreeBSD (they don't), I said they use OpenBSD, which they do. Secondly I think the main attractions of OpenBSD in that area are that it has great tools, is very easy to setup and administer and once in place, is pretty much a "fire and forget" system. It's focus on code simplicity and auditing is another major advantage for systems exposed to the Internet. It may not equal Linux in terms of performance, features, hardware or software support, but these advantages plus the fact that it's generally content with very modest hardware specs more than make up for it as far as first-line-of-defence devices are concerned. I wouldn't put OpenBSD on my desktop, I wouldn't run any data crunching, database or web application on it, but for a FW or LB, it's the go-to solution.

[Luke_Wolf]

Unless I missed something, these benchmarks don't say anything about ZFS being faster. BTW by suggesting that a piece of software has "apologists" and is thus somehow akin to a crime, you put yourself immediately to the ridiculous fanboy category.

Ehm... Apologia is mostly associated with religion not crime, but simply means someone providing a formal defense of an idea, apologist has only come to be associated with crime due to feminism popularizing the term "rape apologist".