----- Original Message -----
From: "Orlando Andico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [plug] freebsd vs linux :)
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, fooler wrote:
> ..
> > 1. tcp/ip stack of freebsd is faster than linux
>
> not in 2.4 AFAIK.
by default freebsd tcp window size is 16k while linux is 64k. i tweak it in
order to have identical values and still my benchmark results that freebsd
tcp/ip stack is faster than linux. furthermore, it depends on what kind of
link do you have to test it, either LAN or WAN. these two links have
different behavior and i found out that freebsd tcp/ip stack is easily
configurable on the fly to those kind of link for maximum performance
compare to linux you have to alter its source code (eg. how do you disable
delay acknowledgement in linux?).. aside from that, many of the linux
community got annoyed with alan cox because he is always playing with the
tcp/ip stack code. in short, tcp/ip stack of linux is his toyland compare to
freebsd tcp/ip stack comes from the research group of berkeley. i remember
the time with linux kernel 2.2.x (somewhere in there) that its tcp/ip stack
really sucks. its too painfully slow until they release a new kernel which
improve the performance.
> > 2. vm of freebsd is optimize than linux
> not in 2.4 -- but FreeBSD by default is set up with optimal values while
> Linux needs to be tweaked via /proc/sys/vm/ to get FreeBSD-class
> performance.
i did this and still linux start to use the swap memory while freebsd have
plenty of room for its memory.
> > 3. ufs with softupdates is faster than linux' ext2
>
> ext2 is the dinosaur. Haven't tried with ReiserFS. There's a whole class
> of flame wars arguing that "softupdates are better than journaling." But
> NONE of the enterprise UNIX'es use softupdates, they all use journaling.
>
> Hmmmm...
it depends on the application that is running. you wont settle softupdates
for database application right? :->
> > 4. thread time sharing of freebsd is better than linux
>
> Wouldn't know about that. On Linux a thread is a process, so on a
> many-processor Linux box threads would perform better.
>
> > 5. security of freebsd is more secure than linux
>
> Says who? Linux is a KERNEL. Try Trustix. I have.
thats the point, freebsd security is already integrated into its kernel
unlike linux, you have to find third party software and everytime there is a
new linux kernel release, they must catch up what parts are broken.
>
> > 6. but linux smp is at slightly edge than freebsd (but freebsd is
working on
> > it and watch out for freebsd 5.0)
> >
> > but im still watching both of them (including solaris 8 and other OSes
as
> > well) about their developments and performance. IMHO, freebsd is a
matured,
> > stable and rock solid OS.
>
> Granted Linux 2.4 is not that solid (particularly in VM) -- the solution
> for now seems to be throw memory at it so it doesn't croak.
yes i agree but how much more if you put that into freebsd? :->
> But I like the
> Linux style of development -- jkh and his pals are way too elitist.
yes as what the previous url said, democrats and republicans. as a technical
person, i dont care if they are too elitist. what important most is the
performance whether it is easy or difficult to administer.
performance can deliver good service and good service acquires more
subscribers and more subscribers delivers good profit and good profit awards
you better salary :-> this is a kind of culture where i live right now. for
others, it doesnt care about the performance, they care about
comfortability. :->
fooler.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
