Bruce Evans wrote: > FreeBSD has more layers, with less optimization in each layer. Normally > this doesn't matter, since everyone knows that syscalls are expensive > and avoids them :-).
My point is that the majority of applications are written for Linux and they are both syscall-intensive and faster there, so maybe something can be done in FreeBSD. > No Pipe-based Context Switching? That should be included in benchmarks to > show FreeBSD slowness :-), since it is affected by both slow syscalls and > slow context switches. Unfortunately, I found out this one on my own application. > Um, execl and process creation are not syscall-intensive. They take about > 1 syscall each. Yes, in what amounts to a tight loop. They don't try to measure syscalls directly but I'd say they are intensive. > Linux wins this benchmark by a lot mainly because too much weight is given > to the file copy benchmarks In this particular instance I don't care about file system performance (and I believe that unixbench's benchmarks are outdated in this way and measure more of the file system cache than they should). Though it would be nice to have a FreeBSD file system that doesn't suck :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature