New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs

Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kworr at
Tue May 28 11:48:22 UTC 2013

28.05.2013 10:08, O. Hartmann:
> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests
> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS):
> It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the
> gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux
> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at
> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB
> performance between each system).
> Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are
> orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those
> from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems.
> Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a
> very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS
> isn't really needed.

Not a point for me. ZFS gives me confidence in data consistency.

> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is
> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I
> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the
> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and
> measure.
> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our
> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and
> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several
> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels).

... (Looking through all benchmarks for some real world scenarios) Oh, 
we are better at Apache. And why there are no numbers next to PgSQL? 
DragonFly definitely would kick some ass at pgbench.

Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list