Max Brunning has posted a brief comparison of how these three Operating Systems approach a number of basic kernel tasks. He has a brief look at: Scheduling and Schedulers, Memory Management and Paging, and File Systems. Max is an Instructor who spends his time teaching Solaris internals, device drivers, and kernel crash dump analysis and debugging.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
Member since:How did you get that from the data you posted?
By reading it.
There are so amny variables in those two benchmarks that you can't draw a reasonable conclusion from them.
Err, no.
1999, ultra5 270 MHz, lmbench prot fault
Solaris: 21 us
Linux: 4 us
2003, Sun V480, 900 mhz USIII, 8 Mb
Solaris 8: 3.7 us
Funny i count atleast two people who have.
From people who have no numbers to refute mine.
Solaris 10 is still very much the Solaris codebase and while it has gotten faster, I think it is safe bet to say that Linux's fault handler performance is better than Solaris's. You asked me why I said that, I gave you numbers.
Show me your numbers - why are you so surprised about this?
Member since:2005-07-07
Err, no.
1999, ultra5 270 MHz, lmbench prot fault
Solaris: 21 us
Linux: 4 us
2003, Sun V480, 900 mhz USIII, 8 Mb
Solaris 8: 3.7 us
Think. Don't just read think. You are comparing a particular linux version 2.2.x to be precise and projecting performance numbers. You are not interpreting data. Past performance of a code base doesn't apply to future versions. Just because 2.2.x performed better doesn't mean 2.4 and 2.6 do, ecspecially when the whole VM layer was rewritten miday through 2.4.
You haven't really produced any vaild data to support your general claim that linux (any version of it) has better page fault handling performance than Solaris.
Solaris 10 is still very much the Solaris codebase and while it has gotten faster, I think it is safe bet to say that Linux's fault handler performance is better than Solaris's. You asked me why I said that, I gave you numbers.
That may well be. But linux has changed many many times since then and has become more complex if anything else. Without current numbers all you have said is meaningless.
Member since:2005-07-07
1999, ultra5 270 MHz, lmbench prot fault
Solaris: 21 us
Linux: 4 us
2003, Sun V480, 900 mhz USIII, 8 Mb
Solaris 8: 3.7 us
Oh and one more thing. Prot. fault performance is as useless a benchmark as it gets. Most people don't care how quickly thier Apps. get SIGKILL or SIGBUS, pretty much the two most common scenarios if a user land program does get a proteciton fault.
Member since:
2005-07-07
No, parent poster asked for my basis for stating that I thought Linux page faults were faster than Solaris, and I provide evidence up to 2003 (unless you have some good reason to think the 900MHz USIII tested should have slower fault performance than the 270MHz USI).
How did you get that from the data you posted? There are so amny variables in those two benchmarks that you can't draw a reasonable conclusion from them.
Nobody ever seems surprised by these numbers or to care much, as such it is not really something I thought of as a sore spot for Solaris people.
Funny i count atleast two people who have.