http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=trying-8-bsds&num=2
I wonder what happened in his case. I can tell he's re-using the same box and drive from his FreeBSD install, but I've done that many times and never had a problem (other than being annoyed at 'dk' devices showing up). I just wipe the disk and start over. In his case, the install locks up during the kernel initialization. From the looks of the dmesg/ring-buffer he's screenshotting, I'd say he's never getting to init. Phoronix is a pretty Linux-centric site. I have some suspicions is just a way for him to say "Aww, look, half the benchmarks I setup for specifically for Linux in the Phoronix testing suite don't work. BSD must really suck, I guess." Then it gives the kids on slashdot somewhere to link when they need to say "BSD is dead/sucks". I've *have* been noting that Linux's I/O performance edge in the last couple years seems to be really sliding in comparison to FreeBSD. It's still "kinda better" but it used to be "categorically WAY better". I'm not sure if that's more optimization happening in BSD land, or more suck leaking into Linux-land. I do a lot of testing using 'fio' and other benchmark tools and despite all the constant Linux hype of the Next-Great-IO-Scheduler, it's position in the high speed I/O peloton is, if anything, sliding (esp versus FreeBSD ZFS and DragonFly BSD + HAMMER). Of course, it's all relative to what and how you test. YMMV. Nonetheless it pains me to see NetBSD shown in such a bad light. -Swift
