Linked by Michael on Thu 21st Jul 2011 14:08 UTC
Benchmarks Phoronix has conducted some preliminary benchmarks, comparing Debian GNU/Hurd to Debian GNU/Linux. "There was only a handful of tests that could be successfully run under Debian GNU/Hurd and in those results the numbers were generally close, though Debian GNU/Linux was running about 4% faster in some and with the MP3 encoding the Linux OS was nearly 20% faster. Debian GNU/Hurd is an interesting project but for now its support is still in shambles, the hardware support is vastly outdated, and there is also no SMP support at this time. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Debian GNU/Hurd turns out for the 7.0 Wheezy milestone."
Order by: Score:
Hrm
by MechaShiva on Thu 21st Jul 2011 14:45 UTC
MechaShiva
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not a good start when you need to benchmark the OS on a VM because you don't have any 2002 era hardware to run it natively.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hrm
by umccullough on Thu 21st Jul 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "Hrm"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Not a good start when you need to benchmark the OS on a VM because you don't have any 2002 era hardware to run it natively.


Well gee, isn't hardware/driver support the biggest problem with all new OSes?

Honestly, I was surprised to see that the benchmarks they ran were as close as they were.

Edit: (and yes, for all intents and purposes, Hurd is a "new" OS, since nobody uses it for anything practical yet)

Edited 2011-07-21 15:05 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Hrm
by Laurence on Thu 21st Jul 2011 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Hrm"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Edit: (and yes, for all intents and purposes, Hurd is a "new" OS, since nobody uses it for anything practical yet)


I was going to point out that Hurd is older than Linux, then I spotted your edit.

However with pedantics cast aside, I do agree with your point. I'd sooner see tests inside a VM than tests on varying hardware.

Edited 2011-07-21 15:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hrm
by umccullough on Thu 21st Jul 2011 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hrm"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I'd sooner see tests inside a VM than tests on varying hardware.


Ultimately, I want to see more varied tests - exercising graphics (assuming there are any drivers), networking, disk I/O performance, etc. One of the things I've always read is that microkernel OSes based on the likes of Minix and Hurd are going to be noticeably slower due to all the overhead of message passing between processes, etc.

CPU intensive testing doesn't interest me as much between kernels - and even disk-based testing on a VM is sort of pointless due to host caching, etc.

When Hurd finally gets SMP support, maybe then some CPU-related tests will be interesting - to see how well a thread scheduler can cope in such an environment.

Security and stability are probably the longer-term goals of Hurd over Linux, obviously.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hrm
by coreyography on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hrm"
coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

One of the things I've always read is that microkernel OSes based on the likes of Minix and Hurd are going to be noticeably slower due to all the overhead of message passing between processes, etc.


I don't think that must be a given. QNX for instance uses a message-passing, small-privileged-kernel model, and it is known for its real-time performance -- even on 8086 CPUs.

That's probably not the same kind or performance as raw throughput in MPEG encoding, say, and maybe that's why little effort has been put into OSes in this vein outside of research. Or maybe it is that doing this type of OS model is hard, and nonportable (much assembly required). But in today's heightened interest in security and reliability, on hardware so fast that a few % difference in raw throughput makes little difference to most people, maybe more effort ought to be put into this and similar approaches (witness the Genode/L4/Fiasco efforts on ARMish _cell phones_).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hrm
by slipwalker on Mon 25th Jul 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hrm"
slipwalker Member since:
2011-05-17

Security and stability are probably the longer-term goals of Hurd over Linux, obviously.


[ tongue-in-cheek ]
hmmmmm... don't we already have BSD's for that ?
[ /tongue-in-cheek ]

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hrm
by Delgarde on Thu 21st Jul 2011 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Hrm"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Honestly, I was surprised to see that the benchmarks they ran were as close as they were.


Not all that surprising when you look at them - for most of those benchmarks, the OS isn't contributing much. All it has to do is stay out of the way, and let the CPU crunch numbers...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hrm
by tylerdurden on Thu 21st Jul 2011 18:00 UTC in reply to "Hrm"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Ironically, for the purpose of the exercise it is an ideal setup since it allows a consistent baseline for the scores.

Reply Score: 3

Interesting
by re_re on Thu 21st Jul 2011 19:08 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

The Hurd Project has always interested me, it's unfortunate that it never gained any momentum. I'm curious how it would fare against darwin or QNX If it had more resources devoted to it over the past few years.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It never gained momentum because it was never finished. They kept changing the micro kernel they were going to use.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by andih
by andih on Thu 21st Jul 2011 21:21 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

I think one day Hurd will become a major player.
I wish them luck at what theyre doing! Although I totally love linux, I can barely wait until Hurd is stable and working well ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by andih
by Delgarde on Thu 21st Jul 2011 21:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I think one day Hurd will become a major player.


*Think* it will, or just *hope* it will? Because this project has been going over twenty years already, and after all that, has very little to show for it. Indeed, it's actually getting worse over time - according to the FAQ, it used to support SMP, but the code no longer works.

Ultimately, I don't think the project will ever achieve anything, unless they get an influx of new contributors. Because with just the current handful of people working on it, they're not going to keep up, no matter how hard they work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by andih
by fithisux on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by andih"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

The major problem with Hurd from my small research is the choice of uKernel. But what is worse is the Hurd is tightly coupled to Mach (the same mistake as MacOSX). On the other hand GenodeOS is portable to various uKernels. Even if GNU-Mach supports various modern CPUs and drivers are moved to the user-space then the performance will be slow and possible have many other problems. Hurd is totally built for Mach, and this is a fatal design flaw.Even if they choose the in-kernel embedding of Mach, another fatal design fault of Apple they will still have problems. The FOSS software depends a lot on modularization and Hurd made the fatal decision not to follow it.

In my understanding they could go with NOVA and create a thin a Mach-portability layer for IOKit and Hurd. But I may be wrong.

Reply Score: 2

So, Hurd lacks broad HW support...
by MacMan on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 14:07 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

along with just about any non mainstream OS.

How hard would it be to port Linux divers to Hurd? Would it be possible to make driver interface layer in Hurd compatible with Linux? Now, I'm obviously not talking about any level of binary compatibility, just source compatibly.

Reply Score: 2