Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
changed it to 1MB everywhere. I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance quite a bit in bonnie++ benchmarks. sysctl vfs.read_max=32 what exactly this option do? read_max 32 what? UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
what exactly this option do? read_max 32 what? UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks? UFS blocks. The default is 8 == 128 kB == MAXPHYS. so you have to raise MAXPHYS too. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Wojciech Puchar wrote: changed it to 1MB everywhere. I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance quite a bit in bonnie++ benchmarks. sysctl vfs.read_max=32 what exactly this option do? read_max 32 what? UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks? UFS blocks. The default is 8 == 128 kB == MAXPHYS. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Chad Perrin wrote: On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:20:49PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong on the last name, it just seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently (my apologies Kris if I'm wrong). Using the URL that the other poster, posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows. I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. I've done some benchmarking of Windows file system IO (NTFS) using known tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used Windows Enterprise Server 2003. You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks and fairly bad results in tasks that do a lot of system work. While the usefulness of such benchmarks may be suspect, I'd still be interested in seeing your results. I have a large spreadsheet full of them, but here's a selection. The benchmark is bonnie++: Win2003 R2 NTFSRAID10-15 87 25 113 6425 11990 Ubuntu Server 7.10 ext3RAID10-15 129 60 167 36114 72562 Ubuntu Server 7.10 JFS RAID10-15 131 64 167 6638 4855 Ubuntu Server 7.10 Reiser3 RAID10-15 130 60 159 30307 35101 Ubuntu Server 7.10 XFS RAID10-15 104 62 164 39 10 FreeBSD 7 UFS+SU RAID10-15 109 43 111 36551 9 FreeBSD 7 UFS+GJ RAID10-15 50 28 103 52460 46604 FreeBSD 7 ZFS RAID10-15 95 63 180 40522 20260 The first three columns describe the system RAID (e.g. RAID10-15 means RAID10 created from 4 15 kRPM drives), the next three are write/rewrite/read speed in MB/s, the last two are random files created/deleted. I hope the mailer doesn't destroy the formatting too much. This was on IBM ServeRAID 8k, 256 M BBU cache. (ZFS RAID was not used). FreeBSD UFS generally achieved low performance but it doesn't surprise me - I'd say its disk IO has a lot of performance problems right now. ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems, especially for writing. I believe XFS was broken in that version of Linux so file creation deletion was garbage - it's normal in more recent versions. File systems were left at default except noatime was turned on where available. One thing where Linux's ext3 really shines is concurrent IO - blogbench (not present in the above table) was really bad in all other OS file system combination, so after all my results (I have 1000 of them), I'm really hoping for an ext3/4 port to FreeBSD :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Win2003 R2 NTFSRAID10-15 87 25 113 6425 11990 Ubuntu Server 7.10 ext3RAID10-15 129 60 167 36114 72562 Ubuntu Server 7.10 JFS RAID10-15 131 64 167 6638 4855 Ubuntu Server 7.10 Reiser3 RAID10-15 130 60 159 30307 35101 Ubuntu Server 7.10 XFS RAID10-15 104 62 164 39 10 FreeBSD 7 UFS+SU RAID10-15 109 43 111 36551 9 FreeBSD 7 UFS+GJ RAID10-15 50 28 103 52460 46604 FreeBSD 7 ZFS RAID10-15 95 63 180 40522 20260 The first three columns describe the system RAID (e.g. RAID10-15 means RAID10 created from 4 15 kRPM drives), the next three are write/rewrite/read speed in MB/s, the last two are random files created/deleted. I hope the mailer doesn't destroy the formatting too could you compare raw device speed between linux and FreeBSD it looks like there is driver problem - low linear speed. ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems, ZFS in your benchmart is similar to UFS. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Wojciech Puchar wrote: Win2003 R2NTFSRAID10-158725113642511990 Ubuntu Server 7.10ext3RAID10-1512960167 3611472562 Ubuntu Server 7.10JFSRAID10-15131641676638 4855 Ubuntu Server 7.10Reiser3RAID10-1513060159 3030735101 Ubuntu Server 7.10XFSRAID10-15104621643910 FreeBSD 7UFS+SURAID10-151094311136551 9 FreeBSD 7UFS+GJRAID10-1550281035246046604 FreeBSD 7ZFSRAID10-1595631804052220260 The first three columns describe the system RAID (e.g. RAID10-15 means RAID10 created from 4 15 kRPM drives), the next three are write/rewrite/read speed in MB/s, the last two are random files created/deleted. I hope the mailer doesn't destroy the formatting too could you compare raw device speed between linux and FreeBSD No, I don't have the system now. it looks like there is driver problem - low linear speed. I don't think so. It's *very* unlikely a driver can mess up linear speed - it's far more easier to mess up random IO. I don't know why it's so (it might be cause by FreeBSD's tiny MAXPHYS), but it's probably not the driver's fault. I've seen this behaviour with other controllers (including plain SATA). ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems, ZFS in your benchmart is similar to UFS. Look at the read speed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems, ZFS in your benchmart is similar to UFS. Look at the read speed. it's faster on that benchmark. but i think low MAXPHYS may be a problem. i changed it to 1MB everywhere. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Wojciech Puchar schrieb: it's faster on that benchmark. but i think low MAXPHYS may be a problem. i changed it to 1MB everywhere. I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance quite a bit in bonnie++ benchmarks. sysctl vfs.read_max=32 Uwe ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, yes windows is much faster and much easier to use. it was told so many times on adverts and you still not understand that?! there are just strange people there that want to still use unix. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, yes windows is much faster and much easier to use. it was told so many times on adverts and you still not understand that?! there are just strange people there that want to still use unix. No one in their right senses would spend time benchmarking FreeBSD (or any Unix variant) against Windows (oh, which version?). It's a waste of time. Let those who use Windows use it and those who like living in a world where they are allowed to use their brains use Unix. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Okay guys. This is Kenya. You pay taxes because you feel philanthropic, unlike our MPs! -- Kenneth Marende, Speaker, 10th Parilament. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
What I find mist glaring when one moves from a Linux / FreeBSD system to a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more. Regarding the usability, it's clear that they target different people, as Windows if mainly used by non-IT people .. On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 10:24 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, yes windows is much faster and much easier to use. it was told so many times on adverts and you still not understand that?! there are just strange people there that want to still use unix. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Julien Cigar Belgian Biodiversity Platform http://www.biodiversity.be Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Campus de la Plaine CP 257 Bâtiment NO, Bureau 4 N4 115C (Niveau 4) Boulevard du Triomphe, entrée ULB 2 B-1050 Bruxelles Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @biobel: http://biobel.biodiversity.be/person/show/471 Tel : 02 650 57 52 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong on the last name, it just seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently (my apologies Kris if I'm wrong). Using the URL that the other poster, posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows. I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. I've done some benchmarking of Windows file system IO (NTFS) using known tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used Windows Enterprise Server 2003. You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks and fairly bad results in tasks that do a lot of system work. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
No one in their right senses would spend time benchmarking FreeBSD (or any Unix variant) against Windows (oh, which version?). It's a waste of time. exactly what i meant. windows agains wine under FreeBSD? cygwin under windows against FreeBSD? Let those who use Windows use it and those who like living in a world where they are allowed to use their brains use Unix. EXACTLY what i'm telling everywhere, including that group. And then i hear about i start flamewars which is nonsense. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more. it may be not VM subsystem but memory usage of windoze software. or both. again - it's too different to be benchmarked ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used rather not. all cygwin do is wrapping calls like read, lseek, open, write, close to windoze calls. Windows Enterprise Server 2003. You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks unless microsoft is intentionally slowing down all programs or some of them to show adventage of their programs. no i'm not joking. it's not just possible, i'm fairly certain they do it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:11:22 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used rather not. all cygwin do is wrapping calls like read, lseek, open, write, close to windoze calls. Windows Enterprise Server 2003. You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks unless microsoft is intentionally slowing down all programs or some of them to show adventage of their programs. no i'm not joking. it's not just possible, i'm fairly certain they do it. Slightly paranoid aren't we? It reminds me of an article I read several years ago in which the author claimed that all Virus and Malware/Trojans were being written by Linux users in an attempt to discredit Microsoft and then start charging for the use of their software in a fashion consistent with Microsoft. He went on to claim that 'open-sore' authors would reap windfall profits. Of course, like you, he offered no concrete evidence, just idle speculation. In any case, due to the multitude of flavors of *.nix and Windows machines, in addition to the thousands of possible configurations, systems, etc., getting a truly meaningful comparison would be a monumental undertaking. In any event, it would be obsolete before you ever finished it. -- Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fortune's Office Door Sign of the Week: Incorrigible punster -- Do not incorrige. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Friday 05 December 2008 13:58:18 Jerry wrote: On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:11:22 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used rather not. all cygwin do is wrapping calls like read, lseek, open, write, close to windoze calls. Windows Enterprise Server 2003. You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks unless microsoft is intentionally slowing down all programs or some of them to show adventage of their programs. no i'm not joking. it's not just possible, i'm fairly certain they do it. Slightly paranoid aren't we? It reminds me of an article I read several years ago in which the author claimed that all Virus and Malware/Trojans were being written by Linux users in an attempt to discredit Microsoft and then start charging for the use of their software in a fashion consistent with Microsoft. He went on to claim that 'open-sore' authors would reap windfall profits. Of course, like you, he offered no concrete evidence, just idle speculation. In any case, due to the multitude of flavors of *.nix and Windows machines, in addition to the thousands of possible configurations, systems, etc., getting a truly meaningful comparison would be a monumental undertaking. In any event, it would be obsolete before you ever finished it. Well, one can find stories like this of course: http://www.postgis.org/documentation/casestudies/globexplorer/ But I'm sure one can find some of the contrary. It does show the value of the benchmark: Is it economically viable to use configuration X vs Y, and performance is only one factor of the descision. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Odhiambo Washington wrote: No one in their right senses would spend time benchmarking FreeBSD (or any Unix variant) against Windows (oh, which version?). It's a waste of time. Let those who use Windows use it and those who like living in a world where they are allowed to use their brains use Unix. Ahem.. Just for the record, I believe that those who like living in a world where they are allowed to use their brain use whatever OS gets the job done for a particular task or task set. Those who are allowed to use their brain, but don't, will often use a pair of pliers as a hammer, because no matter what, their belief is that the pliers are the best tool...even when it takes 10 times longer to bend those pliers in ways that another tool will work with no changes necessary. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Just for the record, I believe that those who like living in a world where they are allowed to use their brain use whatever OS gets the job done for a particular task or task set. yes it means that. that's why they don't use windows as it's useless for them ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 01:09:36PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more. it may be not VM subsystem but memory usage of windoze software. or both. again - it's too different to be benchmarked There's no reason one cannot generate benchmarks comparing the two. You just have to choose your benchmark tasks carefully. Of course, microbenchmarks are usually suspect no matter what systems you're testing -- whether it's FreeBSD vs. MS Windows, OpenBSD vs. Linux 2.6.x, or Ruby 1.9 vs. Python 3.0, there are always ways to arrange your benchmark tests to favor whatever you want to favor. That doesn't change the fact that FreeBSD vs. MS Windows benchmark tests can be every bit as (un)useful as any other benchmark tests. They're not just too different. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Quoth C. Hoare: Two ways of constructing software: (1) make it so simple that there are obviously no bugs, (2) make it so complicated that there are no obvious bugs. Making it simple is far more difficult. pgpO7juZPJTwC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:30:20 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was surprised to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually quite nice, and isn't too dissimilar to FreeBSD in some ways. In terms of performance Windows-based machines have made it into the Top500 list of supercomputers, so at the high end performance must be acceptable at least. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 02:26:50PM +0100, Mel wrote: Well, one can find stories like this of course: http://www.postgis.org/documentation/casestudies/globexplorer/ But I'm sure one can find some of the contrary. It does show the value of the benchmark: Is it economically viable to use configuration X vs Y, and performance is only one factor of the descision. Actually, the only other story that comes immediately to mind of a PostgreSQL vs. Oracle comparison is this one: http://www.enterprisedb.com/about/news_events/press_releases/06_27_07.do . . . so, in my experience at least, stories to the contrary are pretty hard to find. Of course, that seems to be more about PostgreSQL vs. Oracle than FreeBSD vs. MS Windows. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Thomas McCauley: The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. pgpHGZdFjXqjl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Dec 5, 2008 9:34am, Bruce Cran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:30:20 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was surprised to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually quite nice, and isn't too dissimilar to FreeBSD in some ways. In terms of performance Windows-based machines have made it into the Top500 list of supercomputers, so at the high end performance must be acceptable at least. Very interesting. To be fair, programming is programming. It's not as if a struct suddenly became an int because we're using windows. You've just got to learn to do it differently. It's just irritating that there's not a fork() in windows, VERY irritating. Other things are quite irritating too, but like I said, it's not as if C++ suddenly became something different because I was working in windows. To the list, I must say that I wasn't looking to start a holy war. Before posting I thought that the message was properly worded to find out if it had ever been done and if the results could be easily accessed. I found the result sets from Kris quite interesting comparing FreeBSD X against Linux X, DragonFlyBSD X and so forth. It was just interesting and I was wondering how similar benchmarks would compare. I didn't meant to set anyone off. Lastly, I think I may have left the impression that perhaps where I work they switched from FreeBSD to Windows. Had this been the case, the transition would have been far more discouraging to me. FreeBSD is my preferred OS. I too prefer the using of my brain to more brain-dead OSs. This fact is actually one of the irritants with using Windows now at work. I dislike that Visual Studio thinks it knows better than I do and that everything is so abstracted that it's hard to get down the ground level of what you're doing. And although IntelliSense is nice, still, give me gvim any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Andy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Friday 05 December 2008 17:45:37 Chad Perrin wrote: On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 02:26:50PM +0100, Mel wrote: Well, one can find stories like this of course: http://www.postgis.org/documentation/casestudies/globexplorer/ But I'm sure one can find some of the contrary. It does show the value of the benchmark: Is it economically viable to use configuration X vs Y, and performance is only one factor of the descision. Actually, the only other story that comes immediately to mind of a PostgreSQL vs. Oracle comparison is this one: http://www.enterprisedb.com/about/news_events/press_releases/06_27_07.do . . . so, in my experience at least, stories to the contrary are pretty hard to find. Of course, that seems to be more about PostgreSQL vs. Oracle than FreeBSD vs. MS Windows. Point being, that a benchmark should never decide or even help decide to change software accross the board as a policy. You may use it as orientation, but in practice the value of said benchmarks is low as they rarely represent real workloads. The deciding process is migrating one and see what happens, what you have to do to migrate (it's rarely just the os and takes man hours) and what the difference in maintenance and periodic costs is. Benchmarks are more useful to see what kind of hardware I'd need to run a MySQL server with X simultanious connections on FreeBSD and even better if the tuning and optimizations for the benchmark are documented. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was surprised to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually quite nice, and whatever ideas/solutions microsoft do it's f..ked up or stolen. the stolen case is actually better :) isn't too dissimilar to FreeBSD in some ways. In terms of performance Windows-based machines have made it into the Top500 list of supercomputers, so at the high end performance must be acceptable at least. maybe in raw MIPS performance ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:36:45 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was surprised to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually quite nice, and whatever ideas/solutions microsoft do it's f..ked up or stolen. the stolen case is actually better :) They poached VMX developers from DEC and got sued over it IIRC. From what I've read it's supposed to be a pretty good hybrid kernel. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
Hi, I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong on the last name, it just seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently (my apologies Kris if I'm wrong). Using the URL that the other poster, posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows. I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. Thanks, Andy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
