"Since the conclusion of the SMPng project, the focus of SMP development in FreeBSD has shifted from deploying locking infrastructure to careful profiling and optimization of kernel SMP strategies for increased performance on common workloads. FreeBSD 7.0 was the first release to benefit from this optimization work." The status of this work includes MySQL workload benchmarks and memory allocator performance in the new FreeBSD 8 branch. Also, here is a recent presentation showing FreeBSD compared to several other operating systems like NetBSD, DrangonFly, Solaris, and Linux.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-29
I think the point is to say "hey guys we're back in the game".
"Nick Piggin has been doing some benchmarking of recent linux kernels and FreeBSD 7.0 on a 2xquad core barcelona opteron. He verified that the CFS problems seem to be fixed and FreeBSD's performance on this box with mysql is really very similar up to about 20 threads. I feel confident that the test was conducted fairly and I'm happy with these results. Our stable release is doing very well even if fresh-out-of-git linux is showing better on this platform." <-- Jeff R. on the recent linux is faster benchmark.
It's just friendly competition -- and the only people who are turning this into dick size contests are those fanatics who are reading a little too deeply into it.
Everyone knows benchmarks are only relevant within context. The FreeBSD guys are comparing to linux because linux has been considered a performance leader the last few years... it's the easy first choice. It wouldn't make much sense for them to compare to OpenBSD in terms of performance and scalability, now would it?
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2006-07-15
>but when was the last time some Linux kernel developer came out and posted a benchmark where FreeBSD didn't do so well?
Oh I forgot something? There is at least always a developer of Linux who spreads FUD about other operating systems. But in the end I wouldn't post a benchmark at all being a Linux developer, because we could actually see the real 'performance'.
There:
http://www.linux.com/articles/45571
or there too:
'I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots. '
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0604.2/1219.html
So please stop the FUD if something like Linux is actually made by childish developers. You will _not_ find such an infancy in *BSD!
Member since:2007-07-11
There:
http://www.linux.com/articles/45571
Oh well.. I don't see him spreading FUD in there. He clearly says that he doesn't know *BSD and that he thinks those discussions are pointless..
Some examples:
Torvalds: I really don't much like the comparisons. In many ways they aren't even valid, since "better" always ends up depending on "for what?" and "according to what criteria?".
NF: If the BSDs were better technically five years ago, has the playing field leveled since then?
Torvalds: I don't think they were better five years ago (see above), and I don't think the question really makes sense.
NF: Are there parts of BSD today that you would like to see adopted in the kernel?
Torvalds: I certainly don't have any specifics, but that's not saying that I'd be against it. It just means that I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask somebody who uses both.
I think Linus answers are pretty good actually..
'I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots. '
Well.. don't put too much into it. He said apparently not certainly 
Member since:2005-07-11
For people like you it is not worth it and it's all about fame. But for caring linux devs it was something else. FreeBSD devs have been pointing out weakness left and right in the linux kernel performance and without them God knows when linux devs would have discovered these bottle necks! Consequently, hard working linux devs patched them and improved these points. So, move along.
For all the people who pointed Nick Npiggin website.
Here is a quote from his website
Now let's see Nick's Benchmarks on FreeBSD 8-CURRENT since he is benchmarking with an "unstable" linux rc.
[EDIT]
And for the record after reading a few posts. It seems to me (as always) that most of these Linux zealots are pretty childish. "Oh who said so, my car is faster than yours!", "Oh you got your fame! Now look how I beat you." Check out http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/18706.html Jeff's friendly posts regarding the benchmarks! This is the FreeBSD community manners!
Not RTFM and sucking on lolly pops zealots.
Edited 2008-03-11 21:24 UTC
Member since:2005-07-24
Here is a quote from his website
While you were quoting Nick, why did you not quote this:
"""
The Linux kernel used is not a "stable release" whereas FreeBSD is (although I'm not aware of any significant performance improvements over the 2.6.24 kernel -- 2.6.25-rc4 is simply what I have installed on the machine)
"""
Or, we could just wait until next month when 2.6.25-final is released. Why should we test a FreeBSD kernel version which might not be ready for years? And, of course, Nick also included the rather old 2.6.22 kernel from last July, and it beat FreeBSD 7.0, as well.
But don't you think the whole back and forth in this thread is kind of silly? I'm happy that both Linux and FreeBSD are doing well. And I'm glad we got a nice glibc bug fix out of all this.
My only annoyance has been the way the FreeBSD folks have paraded Kris' benchmarks around ad nauseam for the past couple of months.
Edited 2008-03-11 21:42 UTC
Member since:2007-08-06
FYI, I have been trying hard but cannot replicate the ISC benchmarks, even using identical data sets and test methodology. My best guess is that since their test hardware is using the bge driver -- which is a mass of quirks and workarounds for broken broadcom hardware in both linux and FreeBSD -- then perhaps FreeBSD is missing bug workarounds for their particular model.
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/bind-pt.png
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/bind-pt-gige.png
I see FreeBSD outperforming Linux by about 35-40% with Intel gigabit ethernet and chelsio 10 gigabit ethernet drivers. The performance drop above 6 named threads is a scalability problem in named.
As for why we're doing these comparisons: if you don't know where you perform well compared to other OSes, you don't know where you perform badly either, and that tells you where you should concentrate future work. This works in both directions, and Linux is also benefiting from the comparisons. The end result is a win for the users.
Member since:
2007-07-11
What's the point it this?
This is the third or fourth time we see those benchmarks. Ok, ebizzy and bind are new, but what's the point? The ISC did their own bind benchmarks, take a look at http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html
Ok, they are using older versions.. fair enough, but at least they are independent.
The ebizzy benchmark indicates that glibc's memory allocator isn't the best
As for MySQL benchmarks: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/npiggin/sysbench/
Linux actually performs better..
You had your 5 minutes of fame, the SMPng project took 5 years longer than you expected and now you're trying to show everyone that you are faster than Linux.. please..
Really what's the point? Of course you pick benchmarks where you might perform better, I can't blame you for that, but when was the last time some Linux kernel developer came out and posted a benchmark where FreeBSD didn't do so well? You have to admit that they had plenty of time between 4.x and 7.x ;D
Now something positive.. the first MySQL benchmark published last year was actually good, because you exposed a real bug in glibc, but after that was fixed it's all a bit picky..