Re: Linux port.....
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 05:08, Andrew Humphries wrote: On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 13:51, C. Ulrich wrote: On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:43, andi payn wrote: 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows Check with top to see which processes are using the CPU. Keep in mind that top is gathering information from the same proc filesystem as gtop, GNOME's system monitor, etc., so it's no more accurate than they are. And, as I mentioned, there are well-known issues with this reporting. For me, 9 times out of 10, it's the X server itself taking up cycles for doing nothing. But for me, 9 times out of 10, the X server is grabbing lots of idle time but won't steal time away from processes that actually need it. This may prevent a laptop CPU from going into low-power mode, but it doesn't affect anything else--even nice 20'd processes run. With a patched kernel, this can get even more extreme (like the interactive kernel patches, which will throw bonus timeslices at X, nautilus, and some other processes): I've seen X using supposedly over 90% of my CPU--and then started a compile, and X immediately dropped to under 10%--and everything remained responsive throughout. Even without unofficial patches, remember that the linux scheduler has been hacked at and even continually rewritten a few times in recent years, so what you see with one version may not be the same with another. However, you may have a memory leak. When I upgraded a Redhat 6 box to XFree86 3.3, I had exactly that problem (IIRC, it ultimately had to do with a bug in the version of gcc that Redhat was distributing)--after a while, X was using 90% of my CPU for real, and sucking up a few hundred megs of memory to boot, and the system slowed to a crawl. (Even then, I just had to kill X; I didn't need to restart.) This is why I said, FreeBSD may be using less background processing time. Or maybe not. Linux sometimes doesn't give you enough (or accurate enough) information to know whether it's wasting your CPU. So, it certainly appears to be more wasteful than FreeBSD, but it may not actually _be_ more wasteful. As a test, rebuilding mozilla takes about the same amount of time under both systems (FreeBSD 5.1 vs. Mandrake 9.1 with kernel 2.4.21 with the preemptible patch). It won't do it right after a fresh boot, but some program along the way usually triggers the siphoning of the CPU usage. I have found this an awful lot whilst running X under Linux. After a fresh boot, with nothing running, it works nicely. Give it a couple open applications, and even when nothing is running except X itself, it will take up extra CPU time and physical memory space until freshly booted again. If this isn't getting too off-topic, what distro, kernel, and X are you using? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux port.....
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:43, andi payn wrote: 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows Check with top to see which processes are using the CPU. For me, 9 times out of 10, it's the X server itself taking up cycles for doing nothing. It won't do it right after a fresh boot, but some program along the way usually triggers the siphoning of the CPU usage. Charles Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux port.....
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 13:51, C. Ulrich wrote: On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:43, andi payn wrote: 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows Check with top to see which processes are using the CPU. For me, 9 times out of 10, it's the X server itself taking up cycles for doing nothing. It won't do it right after a fresh boot, but some program along the way usually triggers the siphoning of the CPU usage. Charles Ulrich I have found this an awful lot whilst running X under Linux. After a fresh boot, with nothing running, it works nicely. Give it a couple open applications, and even when nothing is running except X itself, it will take up extra CPU time and physical memory space until freshly booted again. Regards, -- Andrew Humphries [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux port.....
dear FreeBSD team: I am a new user to both Linux and FreeBSD. I installed both system (4.8 and slackware 9) under VMware for windows they are working ok. Before parting my HD and do a real installation , without VMware emulator. I am interested to know which of one runs faster. What about Linux program under FreeBSD, will they run slower or same speed as native Linux OS. Hope you can answer my Q. Thanx in advance. Alessio Caffi. __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux port.....
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 14:44, Alessio Caffi wrote: dear FreeBSD team: I am a new user to both Linux and FreeBSD. I installed both system (4.8 and slackware 9) under VMware for windows they are working ok. Before parting my HD and do a real installation , without VMware emulator. I am interested to know which of one runs faster. What about Linux program under FreeBSD, will they run slower or same speed as native Linux OS. The short answer is that most linux programs run at about the same speed under linux and FreeBSD. Running linux software on FreeBSD is also about the same speed as recompiling the source for FreeBSD native. This is what you'd expect, and this is _usually_ what you get. There are a few exceptions (all of which have nothing to do with the linux emulation, but which will still affect you). I should mention that I'm certainly not an expert--until the past few weeks, I hadn't used a BSD operating system in years. Also, I'm using FreeBSD 5.1 vs. various Mandrake versions, and (briefly) Redhat 6.2 and 8.1. But I can offer some observations from my (limited) experience. 1. Multimedia may be much slower on FreeBSD, if you have hardware for which acceleration is either non-existent or harder to get working on FreeBSD. On my ATI Rage, for example, I can't get DRI, or Xv, or vidix working on FreeBSD. This means that full-screen games, OpenGL apps, mplayer, etc. all run very slow on FreeBSD. If you don't have hardware for which this is an true, or don't plan to do much multimedia/gaming, this won't affect you; otherwise, it's a huge difference. 2. UFS seems to write significantly faster than ext3 in some cases. Things like squid proxies, mail servers, web browsers, GNOME programs that do too much gconf'ing, etc. seem noticeably faster in FreeBSD. This only matters if you spend a lot of time running apps that don't play well with ext3 (in which case you should be usin Reiser, XFS, or whatever's best for your usage in linux anyway). 3. FreeBSD's swapping may also be smarter or faster. Or maybe not. I know that, e.g., working with gigantic files in gimp seems to be a little faster than under linux, and the memory-leak bug in SMAC doesn't make the game slow to a crawl quite as quickly. This may be a consequence of /tmp, etc. being on UFS, or something completely different. 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows CPU-bound processes certainly don't seem to run a whole lot faster (as they should, if this were something real). Other than these cases, for the most part, I haven't seen much speed difference with linux apps--or ports to FreeBSD. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
