View Full Version : Linux Versus BSD settled once and for all
innova 10-19-2003, 04:22 PM Found an interesting article today:
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/
In summary, linux 2.6 kernel will pretty much smack around ANY BSD in terms of network performance, memory mapping, etc.
FreeBSD is the best of the BSDs.
Linux 2.4 is so-so.
OpenBSD is horrendous and should not be used for ANY network services.
Muhaha. Been waiting for this kind of data to come rolling out.
pf kicks iptables down the stairs through the corridor and out the door though ;-)
innova 10-19-2003, 04:40 PM Sorry for the topic title but its bound to get some people posting in here.
Its not necessarily what I believe, but the point I am floored with is the truly OUTSTANDING performance of the linux 2.6 kernel. Wow.
propcgamer 10-19-2003, 04:44 PM Yea the 2.6 kernel seems to be fantastic.
Here's the original link from Slashdot if anyone is interested: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/19/0130256&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=130&tid=185&tid=190
I'll stay out of this flamewar :D
Yeah but BSD is better as people accuse you of using the operating system of the devil :)
Rus
RSanders 10-19-2003, 08:05 PM Linux in general scales very well. The tools availible make it easy to manage ~100 machines, while we are working on rolling out FreeBSD and finding scaling issues on large networks. I expect I'll write a buttload of code before we are able to scale out BSD like we do linux solutions. Then, there are a few problems when you use it in a high availiblity situation where the machine is fully loaded 24/7. Not normal operation, but system administration and maintenence.
OpenBSD smacks linus around when it comes to filtering and 'stability' BUT, its a manual process that doesn't scale well. I love PF, but screw hosting off it ;) I like the fact my OpenBSD box's have ~14 processes total in top, or less.
2.4 is better than so so, even if 2.6 is wicked. BSD kernels are good if you building something designed around the functions inherent.
sigma 10-19-2003, 10:21 PM Originally posted by rsanders
The tools availible make it easy to manage ~100 machines, while we are working on rolling out FreeBSD and finding scaling issues on large networks. I expect I'll write a buttload of code before we are able to scale out BSD like we do linux solutions.
Do you mind if I ask what tools you are using to manage 100+ Linux servers that cannot be used with FreeBSD? We were able to do the same with minimal tool development.
Kevin
RSanders 10-20-2003, 03:13 AM None of the tools directly port, its apples and oranges and FreeBSD is just different in enough aspects to matter.
Management is a loose term, and by what you said I can tell we are definatly not looking at the same things.
sigma 10-20-2003, 07:38 AM Originally posted by rsanders
Management is a loose term, and by what you said I can tell we are definatly not looking at the same things.
OK, if you say so. It's off-topic anyway.
Kevin
cperciva 10-20-2003, 08:28 AM Originally posted by rsanders
None of the tools directly port, its apples and oranges and FreeBSD is just different in enough aspects to matter.
You're right: FreeBSD Update doesn't work on Linux. Instead, people pay rediculous fees to gain access to RedHat's (slower, more bandwidth-intensive) up2date service.
(Allow me to pre-empt the inevitable mention of apt-get with three words: Performance, bandwidth, security.)
Ophelus 10-20-2003, 11:47 AM It's not settled.. he basically said they where the same.. lol
With only minor tweaking of 5.1 to make it on par..
Jake Weg 10-20-2003, 04:38 PM yea I noticed crazy performance increses with 2.6 in general
its extremely noticeable just from using the server these are not benchmark differences where you are talking about the diff betweeen 22 fps and 23 this is huge :)
Perlboy 10-21-2003, 04:02 AM Originally posted by Jake Weg
yea I noticed crazy performance increses with 2.6 in general
Likewise,
As for FPS, well, my stock 2.4 kernel ran CS @ 30 fps. A custom 2.4 kernel brought that up to 62 fps. And finally, the 2.6 kernel resulted in 80 - 90fps or so.
Quite a considerable difference indeed, not to mention a massive desktop (I've yet to try 2.6 on a production box) useability increase.
Stuart
Originally posted by Perlboy
As for FPS, well, my stock 2.4 kernel ran CS @ 30 fps. A custom 2.4 kernel brought that up to 62 fps. And finally, the 2.6 kernel resulted in 80 - 90fps or so.
Was the 2.6 kernel stock?
Perlboy 10-21-2003, 06:06 AM Nup,
Custom compiled with USB, ALSA + 2 soundcard support and optimized for Athlon.
Stuart
genlee 10-21-2003, 02:07 PM Originally posted by Perlboy
Nup,
Custom compiled with USB, ALSA + 2 soundcard support and optimized for Athlon.
Stuart
That would be a stock kernel. Anyway the reason why more ppl like pf over iptables is just syntax. Anything you can do in pf, iptables can do, it just has the ugliest syntax.
eBoundary 10-21-2003, 06:56 PM Really!? wow, i did not know that iptables could do OS fingerprinting and provide different rulesets/actions based off of the source/destination OS :).
Perlboy 10-21-2003, 07:39 PM Originally posted by genlee
That would be a stock kernel. Anyway the reason why more ppl like pf over iptables is just syntax. Anything you can do in pf, iptables can do, it just has the ugliest syntax.
Err, how would a custom compile be a stock kernel?
A stock kernel contains support for everything possible. I cut down my list to be specifically tailored to my motherboard and devices, hence I'd say it isn't a stock kernel.
Stuart
Jake Weg 10-21-2003, 09:25 PM it means w/o any custom patches to the source
| 