* Jonathan Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010616 19:13] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In order to perform a valid benchmark for stricly performance issues and let
> aside stability trade offs,
> A fair benchmark would be to purchase 3 exact systems, update BIOS, then
> deploy Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows2k.
> Tune them to the max, each perspective that could be modified to increase
> performance, then run silly write/read test, connect() test whatever.
>
> And in your test, show all the performance options you used and whatnot, and
> this benchmark should be redone periodly with new advices to show people
> what OS is the fastest when it's leg is pulled.
>
> As for the benchmark briefly, It's biased because whoever did it knew fuck
> nothing about Unix and Linux doesnt need tuning so Linux won period.
> Linux is tuned out of the box, where the others are tuned for stability.
Linux is not "tuned out of the box", Linux just allows for just
about any subsystem to monopolize the kernel resources. Basically
when you start to stress multiple subsystems on a Linux box that
isn't tuned properly it all goes to hell. This is because for
example your network buffers might eat up too much memory for you
to be able to do a reasonable job at caching files.
Also, I really hate it when people say Linux's disk IO is fast
compared to FreeBSD, sure it's fast, but at the expense of possible
massive corruption on a crash.
Oh wait, Linux doesn't crash, does it? :)
--
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message