Anatomy of Perfomance tests

[Wojciech Puchar]

>> 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 
matter.
And i think FreeBSD scheduler would clearly win.