Anatomy of Perfomance tests
wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
Fri Jun 29 12:04:08 UTC 2012
>> That said, I think that the Linux kernel performs better simply due to
>> wider adoption (larger developer base, wider set of use-cases, etc)
>> and thus a higher chance of getting performance improvements.
> Note that stability matters too.
of course - this is what i pointed out at first.
the second is clear team managing a kernel, and support.
What i recently get when getting FreeBSD crash problems is something that
you'll not get from linux. It found out to be my fault.
I would generally call properly configured FreeBSD as rock-stable.
The filesystem performance was close, and comparing dangerous linux
filesystem to UFS isn't good.
i would recommend comparing -o async mounted UFS with that test.
Second - i would like to see how responsive linux server is WHILE
performing that tests ;) high latencies under load was a problem i always
had with linux when still using it.
But scientific computing task results are FreeBSD fault, and the some
reason is clang compiler,.
With recent gcc-recompiled binaries it would be similar result.
Similar as with compute-bound processes OS doesn't have much to change.
Maybe, if there were more threads run than available, scheduler could
And i think FreeBSD scheduler would clearly win.
More information about the freebsd-questions