Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 Benchmarks

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the two-oses-enter-two-oses-leave dept.

BSD 268

An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has brought benchmarks comparing the FreeBSD 8.0-RC and Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 6 operating systems. FreeBSD rather ends up taking a wallop to Ubuntu Linux, but there are a few areas where FreeBSD 8 ran well. They also posted benchmarks comparing this near-final FreeBSD 8.0 build to that of FreeBSD 7.2 to show performance improvements there but with a few regressions."

cancel ×

268 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let's see these against my Gentoo... (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564481)

...once I'm done compiling.

Re:Let's see these against my Gentoo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564507)

Meh,

Hows about OpenSolaris - once I have recovered from the shock of going back to 8-character usernames

Re:Let's see these against my Gentoo... (4, Funny)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564711)

Given that, I think it'd be fairer to compare Gentoo against Ubuntu 10.04, don't you?

Re:Let's see these against my Gentoo... (0, Flamebait)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565283)

Well that depends, if you want to compare Open Office benchmarks, then you will be waiting until Ubuntu 10.04 comes out.

Re:Let's see these against my Gentoo... (1)

TheBlackMan (1458563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565447)

...once I'm done compiling.

If they used stock kernel (and they surely did), then any optimized Linux will be faster than that. As we can see, even "bloated" Linux is still pretty damn fast.

What's the point. (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564499)

I'm sort of curious what the point is of comparing an alpha to a release candidate. Additionally it's a minor update versus a major update. Throwing in an older release makes it all the more pointless as I'm not seeing anywhere in the summary that they disabled debugging.

Re:What's the point. (5, Insightful)

bostei2008 (1441027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564571)

Just a plug for the Phoronix Test Suite?

Re:What's the point. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564801)

Mod this comment up dudes and dudettes!

Re:What's the point. (1)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565343)

Yes and we can't have advertising on the net! *sarc*

Re:What's the point. (0, Redundant)

bostei2008 (1441027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565581)

If it comes thinly disguised as a news article at slashdot, it annoys me.

Re:What's the point. (3, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564601)

I'm sort of curious what the point is of comparing an alpha to a release candidate. Additionally it's a minor update versus a major update. Throwing in an older release makes it all the more pointless as I'm not seeing anywhere in the summary that they disabled debugging.

They left out almost all distros, too.

Re:What's the point. (5, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564661)

Well, with the number of distros out there, it's inevitable that they'd leave out most of them. But I must admit that leaving out every other distro makes it kind of hard to know if Ubuntu is doing better than the pack or about the same.

It's kind of suspect, in my opinion, that the older release was doing so much better than the newer one, considering all the time that's been spent in recent times on optimizing various portions of the source. It's also worth noting that probably a much larger portion of the FreeBSD user base will recompile their kernel pretty much immediately with basic optimizations and removing the cruft that they don't need or want.

Re:What's the point. (2, Interesting)

fbjon (692006) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564985)

Is there any actual benefit to be gained from removing "cruft", other than saving a smidgen of memory?

Re:What's the point. (4, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565615)

Is there any actual benefit to be gained from removing "cruft", other than saving a smidgen of memory?

Long, but not long enough answer:

Performance: Unless the cruft is a bunch of data or NOPs, it will be executed at some point, which is pointless (or it wouldn't be cruft.) And whether it's data or instruction, if "good" data is swapped out of the cache in favor of the cruft, then it will have to be read back in (cache misses).

Security: Bugs love to hide in cruft.

tl;dr version: Yes.

Re:What's the point. (1)

greed (112493) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565699)

Yes.

Any resource allocated is something that needs to be tracked. Those tracking objects take a little bit of management time. What kind of time and when depends on the object: sleeping processes aren't checked by the scheduler, but other process operations like signal need to.

Directory entries add up. Even if you have a hash or tree directory index structure, you may still have to scan the whole thing to find files by pattern (for example). With many directory indexes, you must do an end-to-end scan to find out if a name is truly unique.

And almost ALL of the "cruft" that is added to new systems is stuff that "does things" automatically. In order to do that, they all wake up on certain events (including timer events) and check to see if they need to do something. Like multiple devices sharing an interrupt, it all adds up.

Sure, a new system has enough power that it retains good interactive response with all that. But run an old OS on a new system, and wow is it fast.

Re:What's the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564977)

Pretty sure all the debugging, sanity checks, etc were turned off as of RC1. Typically FreeBSD wants the release candidates to feel like the actual release.

Re:What's the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565057)

Additionally it's a minor update versus a major update.

Not sure what you'd consider a major update.

I don't know FreeBSD too well, but v8.0 sounds pretty major to me.

Ubuntu's versioning always has a point number. True, it's not an LTS release, but it is going to be as big an update as any other recent Ubuntu version.

As for whether there's much point to the whole thing.... well, the two OSs have fairly different target audiences, so I'm not sure there is much point in comparing them directly. But I'm sure someone out there cares.

Re:What's the point. (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565421)

The comparision might have made sense if they had tested whether the different version of the compiler used is the "culprit" or not.

Careful manipulation of readership (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564511)

It's interesting how on page 1, there are three graphs. Two of these are "lower is better" (where Ubuntu wins), however, when FreeBSD wins the graph is displayed in MIPS where "higher is better", thus appearing to make Ubuntu win there too.

If you're a casual reader not paying attention, reading, or clicking on to page 2 (and you know I'm right when I say that's most of the people reading this article), you can see where this is going.

And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565377)

the same thing happens later when Ubuntu is losing and BSD is winning. Perhaps it is the fact that most ppl associate LARGER boxes with doing better and there is no manipulation going on?

For such a foolish response, I have to ask, how did you get modded up in the first place?

These results are homophobic!!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564529)

A Mac was not involved in the mix. HOMOPHOBES!!!!

Summary (5, Insightful)

KingOfGod (884633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564547)

The article is of little use other than tell the general populace of Slashdot that FreeBSD 8.0 and Ubuntu 9.10 are right around the corner, and that we should be hyped. Also FreeBSD 8 is a little faster than FreeBSD 7.2 but a lot slower than Ubuntu Linux 9.10

I'm not surprised, however I do belong to the group that does not really care about relative performance to other OS's as performance is only one of the aspects from the vector of decisions we had to make to finally choose FreeBSD for mass-scale deployment.

Re:Summary (3, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565453)

Also FreeBSD 8 is a little faster than FreeBSD 7.2 but a lot slower than Ubuntu Linux 9.10

Not disputing the conclusions of the memory, I/O benchmakrs, part of what they benchmarked is the compiler — FreeBSD's gcc-4.2.1 vs. Ubuntu's 4.4.1. I'm not surprised, GCC's newer release both compiles faster and produces faster binaries.

You could say, FreeBSD is at fault (and thus deserves bad rep) for including an outdated compiler, but, on the other hand, FreeBSD's choice may prove wiser, when bugs in the hot new compiler surface... The compiler's history — as, really, that of any sufficiently complex piece of software — teaches, it is wise to stay several releases behind. Bugs in the older releases are known and all platforms — certainly including FreeBSD — merge fixes into their repositories.

Their choice of using ImageMagick as a test is particularly suspect — that software has so many options (which graphics back-ends to include, whether to use OpenMP, etc.) and varies so greatly between its own frequent minor releases, that I'm sure they built it with subtle (but timing-affecting) differences between platforms... For just one example, FreeBSD's port of ImageMagick [freshports.org] runs all of their bundled self-tests after compilation by default, which takes quite a while. Unfortunately, the testers don't even mention, how exactly they built the stuff. If they used the port on FreeBSD, did they change any options? If they did not use the port, then they didn't build ImageMagick the way the users will be building it... And if they did use the port and flipped some features, did they ensure an identical match between two FreeBSD versions and Ubuntu?

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565475)

Yes, true. However, as mentioned in the beginning of the article, Ubuntu is compiled with a newer version of gcc then FreeBSD. For applications that are not impacted by file IO, that might very well be dominating, because scheduler overhead is small on both systems. Moreover, FreeBSD is optimized for data/web-server tasks, which isn't tested.

Sigh... (-1, Troll)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564557)

My Karma is going to take a hit for this, but it needs to be said.

When there's something you need to do that can't be done with Windows but can be done with Lunix, keep in mind that you can do an even better job with Mac OS X. Some argue that BSD can do it better but no one makes software for BSD since no one gives a flying fuck.

With all seriousness in mind, BSD isn't useful for anything really.

Re:Sigh... (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564621)

My Karma is going to take a hit for this

What karma? You're already posting at +0, even with being a subscriber...

When there's something you need to do that can't be done with Windows but can be done with Lunix, keep in mind that you can do an even better job with Mac OS X.

Except true multitasking? That shared menubar seems to assume you're only doing one thing at a time, and Windows' lack of proper focus-follows-mouse (ie, without raise-on-click) likewise.

Some argue that BSD can do it better but no one makes software for BSD since no one gives a flying fuck.

I was under the impression that the BSDs could generally run Linux binaries (some sort of compatibility mode thing)?

With all seriousness in mind, BSD isn't useful for anything really.

What about as an embedded OS for consumer electronics?

Re:Sigh... (1)

mikeypimp (958424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564747)

Wait, you actually use focus-follows-mouse? You're a better man than I.

Re:Sigh... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564899)

You should try. It is great to be able to work at windows without raising them.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565069)

I second that.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565685)

No it isn't. I want to SEE what I'm working on, not just perform random blind (potentially destructive) operations on occluded windows. That isn't even mentioning all of the problems that can occur if the mouse accidentally gets bumped and causes a different window to gain focus.

Millions of dollars have been poured into useability research and that research has found that focus follows mouse is a stupid and dangerous UI behavior. It's why no major OS has it enabled by default.

Re:Sigh... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565033)

freebsd is 100% binary compatible with linux. so even if you don't have the source or are too retarded to build from source yourself, the linux binary will run without issue or performance penalty.

i find it ironic that the gp talks about no one making software for BSD but cites Mac OSX as being his prefered option. what a fucktard....

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564693)

It depends a lot what you do - backend server/support? embedded? no way I'd use MacOSX, and there are even a lot of desktop and other frontend uses where I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but the absolutest moron or someone who knows what they're doing - then again I'm considered an improper mac user by many since I use macports and do professional stuff where pro is not defined as "some sort of design as claimed by pretentious designers".

Re:Sigh... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564705)

You'll have to explain that to Codeweavers, the Win4BSD people and the other commercial vendors that make software for it. Sure there probably isn't as much stuff aimed at home users as for Linux, Mac or Win, but there is a substantial amount of commercial activity involved. It's odd that some random company would fund a new routing architecture if it's not useful for anything.

Benchmarks... (3, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564559)

Benchmarks are useless. There are way more important things to judge an operating system then "speed".

Does Ubuntu have nearly as good of documentation? No. It has that "info" nonsense.

Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.

Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.

Is Ubuntu built around solid engineering and design, or politics? Depends--Ubuntu seems to be less afraid of the big bad FSF as other distros, but it still is steeped in an OS built for politics. FreeBSD is pretty tame and tends to focus on solid engineering rather than political maneuvering.

But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.

Re:Benchmarks... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564649)

Whaaa whaaa whaaa. Looks like the other BSD user is upset because a toy distro thrashed it in simple tests.

Re:Benchmarks... (4, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564783)

Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.

Ubuntu has LTS (long-term support) releases which are supported for 5 years on the server side. The last was 8.04 and the next will be 10.04.

I prefer RHEL/CentOS, however. I wonder how many people use Ubuntu LTS instead of using RHEL or SLES instead.

Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.

How often is this important? I can think only of a few situations, such as when fitting a system into a small/cheap flash.

But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.

Ubuntu has a separate 'server' version (which really just includes a different set of packages and a different kernel build.)

Re:Benchmarks... (2, Insightful)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564785)

1. Agreed, I think neither is really better and use depends on what you need, which of course some Linux and BSD zealots seem to disagree on - apparently the main free *nix are now entrenched enough to be part of the unix holy wars.

2. Varies, FreeBSD doesn't have perfect docs either and other distros do have better docs

3. Lrn2LTR

4. Yes, it does, there's a 10MB barebones installer for the dedicated and if you need less, pick another distro, even FreeBSD will probably be tons of tweaking at this point.

5. Political strawman yay

6. Call the whambulance.

Re:Benchmarks... (2, Insightful)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564787)

Speed is the most important factor for web-server scenarios, if FreeBSD can handle 10x more inserts into SQL-Lite then Ubuntu in the same benchmark, on the same hardware then Ubuntu is KO'ed by BSD in the server arena, no offense.

Re:Benchmarks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564947)

FreeBSD can handle 10x more inserts into SQL-Lite then Ubuntu

because websites run off SQL-Lite! O_o

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565221)

I am curious how much difference there would have been on a database system that would actually be running in a server environment. Ubuntu definitely got owned by that metric, but SQLite is hardly exemplary of a production database.

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

whatajoke (1625715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564811)

Benchmarks are useless. There are way more important things to judge an operating system then "speed".

Does Ubuntu have nearly as good of documentation? No. It has that "info" nonsense.

Does documentation displayed in info contain less content somehow?

Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.

The last LTS release of ubuntu was 8.04. What major version changes have happened to it?

Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.

Bare metal means what? Ubuntu already runs on netbooks. Are you trying to run a mail server on your wrist-watch?

Is Ubuntu built around solid engineering and design, or politics? Depends--Ubuntu seems to be less afraid of the big bad FSF as other distros, but it still is steeped in an OS built for politics. FreeBSD is pretty tame and tends to focus on solid engineering rather than political maneuvering.

Ubuntu is built upon debian. And so inherits a very solid release process from it. Your rhetoric about distros being afraid of FSF is mind bogglingly idiotic. And not worth discussing.

But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.

And how are LTS releases of ubuntu lacking in stability? All in all; do you have any positive feedback for the ubuntu communtiy?

Re:Benchmarks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565071)

Is Ubuntu built around solid engineering and design, or politics? Depends--Ubuntu seems to be less afraid of the big bad FSF as other distros, but it still is steeped in an OS built for politics. FreeBSD is pretty tame and tends to focus on solid engineering rather than political maneuvering.

How'd it get so easily outperformed if it all about the engineering?

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565105)

Speed is the most important factor hands down, documentation is no where near as important. Second is the ability to configure the application by stripping symbols and optimizing using flags and third is over all memory and cpu foot print. You want it to use the least amount of cycles per operation possible. Then after all of that has been considered, then you look at documentation.

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565509)

you're sounding like someone who has one type of application in mind. my employer mainly deals in systems that handle money, speed is NOT the primary consideration, nor is memory or cpu foot print as hardware is such a small part of project budget they will get however much many boxes and however much cpu/ram the application wants. Anything in the distro that supports the app will be installed from packages, no compiling of distro-provided things will be done except in the most extraordinary situations.

Priorities are certfied/supported by application and driver/device vendors, long term support time, stability, ease of management. This is typical financial business mindset.

Re:Benchmarks... (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565173)

Ubuntu [is] steeped in an OS built for politics

Hah, I see what you did there. You ripped on Ubuntu for being steeped in politics, while ignoring the available facts, i.e. that Ubuntu 10.4 is a stable Long Term Support release, and that it wipes the floor with FreeBSD 8.0 in performance.

That's pretty funny. I mean, if you did it on purpose.

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565579)

the big bad FSF

I must be missing the part where the FSF became the evil empire who wanted to control the world of computing, rather than a rebel alliance who wanted the users in control of the code running on their own computers. And the part where the FSF did anything to actively stop FreeBSD from doing its thing.

The Ubuntu project, the Linux project, and the FreeBSD project all have the same basic goal: create freely shareable really awesome (fast, effective, efficient, robust, useful, and as bug-free as possible) code that solves problems for people. Can't we all just get along?

Re:Benchmarks... (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565609)

Hey! benchmarks are too useful!

without these numerically-backed conslusory points, id be forced to attempt to justify budgeting and purchases to the PHB using the potential usefulness and benefit of a service to its userbase. giving an old man a line-graph and pie chart with made up numbers means he doesnt need to know anything more than red is bad, green is good.

Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564561)

When my friends ask me about Linux, I usually steer them toward Ubuntu first, as it's the most user friendly and well-supported distro out there. Canonical really puts a lot of development work into it, and it shows (in this result and many others). In the past, I usually avoided the Linux topic altogether, as there were so many confusing distros that even trying to explain the concept of Linux to non-geeks (and even many geeks) was a huge pain in the ass. So, I for one welcome our new Ubuntu overlords.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (1, Interesting)

psm321 (450181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565011)

And every time I try Ubuntu "one more time", I am amazed that people call it the most user-friendly distro. I can never get anything to work in it. My go-to "it just works" distro right now is Fedora, and that's what I recommend to people because things actually work. Of course most of the time I personally run Gentoo or Slackware, but there are occasions when I want things to just work.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (1)

bostei2008 (1441027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565201)

My girlfriend just bought a new laptop and, not wanting to spend money on Windows Vista, installed Ubuntu on it.

She is a pretty normal user (what you would call a slightly above average Windows user), but she was amazed at Ubuntu. She got almost everything to work, and those things which would not work out of the box fired her up to get it to work.

Mostly she liked the all-around-friendly atmosphere of Ubuntu, the decidedly non-elitistic image, the helpful community. Also the fact that Ubuntu is pretty gorgeous helped.

For me it seems that the few problems she fought with had to do with missing drivers and video codecs. Also, for a new user, the package system takes some getting used to.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (1)

psm321 (450181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565307)

I think perhaps the problem is that techie users expect different things even out of a "user-friendly" distro than average users. For example, my dad figured out how to install a font on the eeepc default distro, while I was still completely stumped.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (2, Interesting)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565607)

Wow, so I'm not the only one that doesn't understand the Ubuntu love-fest? I only tried it once (8.04 64-bit), but I got frustrated with it very quickly. For example, I logged in as a normal user (not root), selected the network configuration app from the menu, and was not prompted for the root password. Everything just came up ghosted and unusable. I tried to log in as root, but you can't do that ("admin not allowed to log in from this screen" -- is there some other screen that admin can log in from?). I ended up having to pull up a shell, guess the name of the network admin app (/usr/bin/network-admin), then su and run it. This is supposed to be user-friendly? How does something that brain-damaged get released? I ran into several other problems (it's been too long for me to remember details), and just gave up on it after a few hours. I haven't had problems like that with other distros (OpenSUSE has worked quite well for me lately). I just don't see why people think Ubuntu is so much better than everything else.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565623)

Of all the distros my wife tried Ubuntu is the only one that didn't frustrate her enough to reboot the computer into Windows. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great distros out there, but Ubuntu is the first one my wife asked me to install on her laptop.

Re:Ubuntu *is* Linux for a lot of people (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565701)

The problem is that user-friendly is measured using average users as a yardstick, with the assumption that more user-friendly = less techie user can get by. Which leads to the problem that the relatively average-user-friendly Ubuntu is pretty easy to hose if you stray away. For all it's worth, imo, Geek-proofing an OS is pretty much impossible.

Awful (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564583)

FreeBSD rather ends up taking a wallop to Ubuntu Linux, but there are a few areas where FreeBSD 8 ran well.

lrn2preposition

For those that want to skim TFA for the bad result (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564599)

The areas where FreeBSD gets its ass kicked by Ubuntu start on page 7...

It seems to me like FreeBSD's real problem is incredibly bad I/O compared to Linux. The majority of the CPU-heavy tests were nearly neck-in-neck.

Re:For those that want to skim TFA for the bad res (2, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564695)

It's fairly difficult to bungle traditional CPU-heavy loads. The kernel just needs to get out of the way and let userspace do whatever it wants to do. Try the same tests on Mac OS X and Windows (assuming they compile), and you'll see just about the same performance.

Re:For those that want to skim TFA for the bad res (3, Interesting)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564809)

That's to be expected considering the defaults of ext4 vs ufs2. You can increase flush time on ufs2 and expect a similar increase. Revert to ext3 and it would be a completely different outcome. Interesting to see all the chest pounding on choice for default settings in a desktop enviro vs a traditionally server one. Would have been a been comparsion to use the upcoming PCBSD's release vs Ubuntu's, but we've seen the bias from Phoronix before.

Re:For those that want to skim TFA for the bad res (1)

Bralkein (685733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565237)

FTFA:

With Ubuntu 9.10 we were using the x86_64 server CD of the Alpha 6 build. With FreeBSD not shipping with a desktop environment by default, we used the Ubuntu server CD so that both could be tested just from the terminal in a similar environment.

So they are comparing FreeBSD to the Ubuntu server version, but not really for the right reasons.

Re:For those that want to skim TFA for the bad res (1)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565533)

I suppose that's a bit closer, but it still doesn't address the differences between fs defaults. ext4 is far more aggressive than ufs2 is by default. A closer comparison would have be to gjournal ufs and mount async which would have been a relatively close comparison to ext4, but that still would not be a fair io comparison as gjournal scales incredibly well but can double write time on single write. I am struggling to comprehend ext4 as a default filesystem in a server(or anywhere) however, considering it still has crash corruptions issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4 [wikipedia.org]
http://onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2008/02/26/whats-new-in-freebsd-70.html?page=3 [onlamp.com]

Safe to assume? (2, Interesting)

Capsy (1644737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564615)

Maybe this is a sign that more systems will start coming with Ubuntu already equipped?

Re:Safe to assume? (4, Funny)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564725)

Yes, because the masses of casual users struggling under the crushing weight of FreeBSD that was preinstalled on their PC will naturally flock to Ubuntu...

Re:Safe to assume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564729)

Because it beat freeBSD? Yeah it'll replace all those OEM installed FreeBSD laptops and desktops.

Forgive my temerity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564623)

" FreeBSD rather ends up taking a wallop to Ubuntu Linux, but there are a few areas where FreeBSD 8 ran well." Not one of the most well written sentences, but it isn't very good either.

Wallop to? (1)

jepace (25673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564643)

Is taking a "wallop to" something a good thing or a bad thing? I guess that's one way to make sure we read the story is to have the headline make no sense...

Truly crap-tastic charts (5, Insightful)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564651)

Eight pages of bar charts, each gray-on-gray. On half of them, shorter bars mean better performance, on the other half, longer is better; the only way to know which is which is in a legend, written in a small font.

Here's a suggestion: color-code the bars! Green is good, red is bad, yellow is in the middle of the road. For bonus points, choose the saturation based on magnitude of the differences. If the numbers are close, go with grayer bars, if the differences are dramatic, use dramatic colors.

Finally, how about a line chart at the end showing all of the numbers in one place? Yeah, you'd need to convert everything to be consistent if longer or shorter is better, but that's a good idea anyway.

Re:Truly crap-tastic charts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564853)

If you can't be bothered to read the three words "lower/higher is better" than I'd say no one really gives a damn about your opinion anyway.

Re:Truly crap-tastic charts (1)

randomsearch (1207102) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564957)

I agree the charts are poor. What about the fact that the axes don't necessarily start at 0? This can be misleading, in that a small difference can be made to look much more significant. Broadsheets in the UK do this all the time.

One point... red-green colour blindness is quite common, so if we're being pedantic you'd probably want to avoid using them for contrast. Problem with colour-coding is also deciding what is "good" and "bad", which is making a subjective judgement.

RS

Re:Truly crap-tastic charts (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565125)

What I'd recommend for displaying this data is switching from charts to tables, and use alternating light green and white rows (little holes on either end for dot-matrix printer alignment optional).

BSD did rather well (3, Interesting)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564677)

I'm not a BSD user, but I don't see BSD taking a real kicking in these benchmarks. In the majority of the benchmarks, the average user could not discern a speed difference.

Re:BSD did rather well (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564765)

OS benchmarks are misleading, usually. Claims such as "12% decrease in performance" (of linux kernel..) usually translates that kernel execution time takes ~ that much longer, but neglects that majority of time kernel is idle and userspace process (ab)uses the processor (and whatever else). So, 12% is probably 1% in real usage case. I guess same applies to sensational Windows 7 speed improvement over "slow" Vista.

Re:BSD did rather well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564871)

Yeah, if they wanted something interesting they could have tried porting their tests to OpenBSD to see how many orders of magnitude slower it is.
And we could have flame wars on why it doesn't matter that your computer is 100x faster when it spends most of its CPU cycles working for a botnet.
As it is, this is just ammunition to win the "FreeBSD vs Linux performance" argument.
Take that Linux Wannabe OS(F.R.E.E.B.S.D.) :p

Re:BSD did rather well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565085)

Er, what about the first graph: FreeBSD 8.0 was 57% slower! That is a walloping and a half. I'm not a BSD user, but the difference is so great as to make me suspicious of the benchmark. There must be something else going on here.

Re:BSD did rather well (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565435)

Look, this is benchmarking. You need to know your lingo. Take 3D benchmarking. Even though most monitors will have your FPS capped at 60 Hz, if one card gives you 250 FPS and the other only gave you 240 FPS, you say that the new card "absolutely destroys the competition," for example. Anything even partially outside the error bars translates into at least a "solid thrashing."

*BSD is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29564777)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

performance over the years (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564781)

I'd actually like to see a chart with these types of performances going back a number of years. It would be interesting to see the difference between RH10 and the Latest Fedora release (assuming you could even get RH 10 to run on modern hardware without backporting drivers). Same wit FreeBSD.

FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564831)

From the update notes in /usr/src/UPDATING:

NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 8.x IS SLOW:
FreeBSD 8.x has many debugging features turned on, in both the kernel and userland. These features attempt to detect incorrect use of system primitives, and encourage loud failure through extra sanity checking and fail stop semantics. They also substantially impact system performance. If you want to do performance measurement, benchmarking, and optimization, you'll want to turn them off. This includes various WITNESS- related kernel options, INVARIANTS, malloc debugging flags in userland, and various verbose features in the kernel. Many developers choose to disable these features on build machines to maximize performance. (To disable malloc debugging, run ln -s aj /etc/malloc.conf.)

Since the article didn't mention anything about disabling all the debugging options, I'll consider this an invalid benchmark until shown otherwise.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565065)

WITNESS and INVARIANTS were disabled on Sep 10 (http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=197065). FreebSD 8.0-RC1 was built on Sep 17th.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565131)

I'm also wondering whether the Linux distro had newer libraries and drivers (esp. drivers). I noticed that the GCC compile had the BSDs using GCC 4.2 while Ubuntu was using 4.4; it might not be significant, but it could have made all the difference there.

Though it does seem (given other comments) that Linux handles I/O faster-- I'm not sure how much turning off debugging symbols will do, as 7.2 was also left in Ubuntu's dust there. It would certainly be worth checking out for the FreeBSD crew.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565143)

Unfortunately that is a stale comment in the UPDATING file. From svn you can see that the options were removed from the GENERIC kernel config on September 10, 2009 in r197065:

    http://svn.FreeBSD.org/viewvc/base/stable/8/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC?view=log

The usual question that comes up regarding I/O tests is how did the test avoid caching effects? Also, I believe Linux also defaults to async mounts while FreeBSD does not.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565199)

Are those options enabled out of the box as a standard new-to-the-platform sysadmin would install and configure a firewall, Apache Webserver, or fileserver? If so...

Look, we aren't all fulltime sysadmins -- some of us work for small shops and wear many hats, and do the best we can. I get one conference covered a year, and most of my job is still software dev instead of sysadmin. I run openbsd at home, and have had fairly good luck aside from the fact that their idea of user support is straight out of Mordor... But there's some level of details you just can't expect users to know.

I'll admit, if there's "advanced configuration options" (recompiling your kernel counts as advanced--especially since in the BSDs I've seen that will cost you *all* user support)--it would be nice to do those side-by-side and show "out of the box" versus "specialized" behavior... But that starts getting into some pretty unfair territory quickly as it degrades to a contest of expertise... ("Because disk IO was slow we installed GigE NAS on a crossover...")

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565259)

No they are not. Only on the development branch. Which you shouldn't be using. Get a clue.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565319)

Are those options enabled out of the box as a standard new-to-the-platform sysadmin would install and configure a firewall, Apache Webserver, or fileserver? If so...

They are if a standard new-to-the-platform sysadmin installs pre-release testing versions.

Look, we aren't all fulltime sysadmins -- some of us work for small shops and wear many hats, and do the best we can.

So install the normal release versions that don't have these quirks. :-)

I'll admit, if there's "advanced configuration options" (recompiling your kernel counts as advanced--especially since in the BSDs I've seen that will cost you *all* user support)

So you've only seen OpenBSD? I've never heard of that being a problem on the FreeBSD or NetBSD mailing lists. Now, people will want to see your kernel configuration file if you've changed stuff and are having problems, but it's sort of expected that you'll want to build your own kernel at some point and no one thinks much of it.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (1)

mythz (857024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565275)

Since the article didn't mention anything about disabling all the debugging options, I'll consider this an invalid benchmark until shown otherwise.

Every operating system can be further optimized. What's being tested here are the 'Default Settings' as proposed by the installer directly off the Installation Disk.
'The Defaults' also tend to have the characteristic of being the most widely used.

Re:FreeBSD is still in debugging mode (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565633)

Every operating system can be further optimized. What's being tested here are the 'Default Settings' as proposed by the installer directly off the Installation Disk.

Until recently, those default settings for FreeBSD slowed it way down in the interest of collecting extra debugging data. That's no longer the case as pointed out by a couple of ACs above (and I hadn't updated to the most recent prerelease version to notice yet).

Hard to take this seriously (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564919)

I which I'd seen this before I posted my last comment:

FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 BenchmarksFreeBSD performed awful in comparison to Ubuntu when doing random writes, where the latencies were extremely high and off the charts compared to Mark Shuttleworth's operating system.

How "awful" for FreeBSD and good for the OS that Mark wrote. My grammar and clarity aren't always perfect, but hey, I don't get paid to write this stuff. :-)

Re:Hard to take this seriously (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565403)

but hey, I don't get paid to write this stuff. :-)

Oh, admit it -- sure you are, it's just that it's by an employer who doesn't realize that's what he's paying you to do. ;-)

Re:Hard to take this seriously (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565697)

Dude, we don't talk about Fight Club!

benchmark fail! (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564929)

i'm used to piss poor comparisions on the internet, but this one still somehow managed to suprise me.

"FreeBSD was also using the default UFS file-system while Ubuntu 9.10 is running with EXT4." TRY RUNNING THE SAME FILESYSTEM YOU FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the only benchmarks freebsd lost in were O/I intensive tasks, so all this showed is ufs2 is slower then ext4 in some cases.

epic fail.

Re:benchmark fail! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565621)

You, sir, are and idiot. You're literally saying that all OS benchmarks must involve operating systems with identical designs. This wasn't a micro-kernel benchmark for thread concurrency, process efficiency, but a whole operating system benchmark -- And however suprising it may sound, the filesystem can actually be a part of the operating system... WOW! Why don't you take your "O/I" intensive tasks and go buy a book on anger management "you fucking moron".

Phoronix? Moronix more like. (4, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564961)

Yet again a benchmark against a pre-release version of FreeBSD where the testers didn't even bother reading the documentation. Anyone actually familiar with the FreeBSD development and release process would know that a release candidate has a considerable amount of debugging options turned on. This is to help diagnose any problems as the last issues are shaken out of a release, but has an adverse impact on performance.

Re:Phoronix? Moronix more like. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29565523)

I don't remember ever reading a Phoronix benchmark that I've considered valid. I am actually a little surprised they keep making the Slashdot front page!

Re:Phoronix? Moronix more like. (1)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565717)

Yeah, everytime I read one of their articles "Moronix" comes to my mind. But as long as they are the only ones who regularly benchmark Linux (and sometimes BSD) systems they have a kind of monopoly.

terrible review methods (3, Informative)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29564999)

I stopped reading when I realized they didn't even use the same version of GCC in their compilation comparison.

Interesting comparrison but (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565093)

Interesting comparison but the SQL test was a bit off testing a database installed on ext4, a journalling filesystem. Anyone wanting intensive database work would use ext3 for the DB partition.

Also, it would be interesting to see whether FreBSD still outperforms Linux in low-memory situations. This used to be an area where BSD had a clear advantage.

Tugboats (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565165)

First off Free-BSD is a sourced based thanks to Ports so you have the option of adding in optimization and Ubuntu is nativity binary based, not to say you can't get source out of apt. How can you compare a binary and a source, that's like comparing Gentoo VS Ubuntu. Gentoo will win 100% of the time because we you make sure that only use the fastest of the CFLAGS where in Ubuntu you need to have everything built into the binary. I just don't see a fair link between these two operating systems.

Personal experience with BSD shows me just how messed up that system is. I'm surprised they could even install the thing to bench mark with it, and then waited 5 days for ports to grind away getting the packages set up.

Conclusions ? (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565207)

The conclusion of the benchmark seem pretty unclear to me. comparing a development versin with debugging compiled with different compilers on different operating systems lead to different result.

I could have guessed that. I believe a benchmark is useless without a good insight of why the performance are different and how to correct the problem.

Application comparison rather than OS comparison (1)

Itkovian (669746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565535)

How is this really comparing OSses? From the article, I gather that the first benchmark, Imagemagick compilation, compares two GCC versions plus the OS that performs the I/O on behalf of GCC:

"Starting off with the timed ImageMagick compilation process, FreeBSD 8.0 was able to build this open-source application noticeably faster than on FreeBSD 7.2 (even though both are using GCC 4.2.1), but Ubuntu 9.10 with GCC 4.4.1 took much less time to build ImageMagick."

Duh.

Wait, who won? (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29565595)

FreeBSD rather ends up taking a wallop to Ubuntu Linux, but there are a few areas where FreeBSD 8 ran well.

Apparently taking a wallop to != bringing the hurt.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say For the most part, Ubuntu beat FreeBSD, or perhaps FreeBSD got walloped by Ubuntu.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>