FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

[Steven Hartland]

Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1

Comments?

    Regards
    Steve

   

================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone [phone]
or return the E.mail to postmaster@....

_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Francisco Cabrita]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Steven Hartland
<killing@...>wrote:

> Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
>
> Comments?
>
>
I didn't saw anything related to turning off witness and invariants... so...

Regards,
Francisco

>   Regards
>   Steve
>
>
> ================================================
> This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the
> person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the
> recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise
> disseminating it or any information contained in it.
> In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please
> telephone [phone]
> or return the E.mail to postmaster@....
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
blog: http://sufixo.com/raw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Francisco Reyes-2]

Steven Hartland writes:

> Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
> Comments?

This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most
likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[István-3]

http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-current&m=125413848303229&w=2

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Francisco Reyes <lists@...>wrote:

> Steven Hartland writes:
>
>  Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
>> Comments?
>>
>
> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most
> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
the sun shines for all
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[dieter-7]

In message <cone.1254181613.595484.57677.1000@...>, Francisco Reyes writes:
> Steven Hartland writes:
>
> > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
> > Comments?
>
> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most
> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.

"All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults."

My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad?
Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage
where it actually matters.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Francisco Cabrita]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:29 AM, István <leccine@...> wrote:

> http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-current&m=125413848303229&w=2
>
>
well I didn't knew that fresh one. Nice to know. Gona test for RC too.

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Francisco Reyes <lists@...
> >wrote:
>
> > Steven Hartland writes:
> >
> >  Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >
> > This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that
> most
> > likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> > freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
> >
>
>
>
> --
> the sun shines for all
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
blog: http://sufixo.com/raw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Andrew Kuriger]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT, Dieter <freebsd@...>
wrote:
> In message <cone.1254181613.595484.57677.1000@...>,
> Francisco Reyes writes:
>> Steven Hartland writes:
>>
>> > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
>> >
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1

>> > Comments?
>>
>> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that
>> most
>> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.
>
> "All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults."
>
> My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad?
> Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage
> where it actually matters.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

Well for one if we look at /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 says that they left the debugging features on I think
this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the
documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is
available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark.

~Andrew

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Randy Schultz-2]

----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@...> spaketh thusly:

|
| Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
| think
| this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
| read the
| documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which
| is
| available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame
| benchmark.


Hrm.  IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting.  It tells us
that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux.

--

 Randy    (schulra@...)      765.983.1283         <*>

The penguin cometh

_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[O. Hartmann-5]

Andrew Kuriger wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT, Dieter <freebsd@...>
> wrote:
>> In message <cone.1254181613.595484.57677.1000@...>,
>> Francisco Reyes writes:
>>> Steven Hartland writes:
>>>
>>>> Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
>>>>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
>>>> Comments?
>>> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that
>>> most
>>> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD.
>> "All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults."
>>
>> My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad?
>> Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage
>> where it actually matters.
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>
> Well for one if we look at /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 says that they left the debugging features on I think
> this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the
> documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is
> available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark.
>
> ~Andrew
>

I doubt that debugging switches left in some places a normal admin or
user can't get so easy are the reason why FreeBSD 8.0-RC performs that
bad compared to Ubuntu 9,1-Linux.
The question at this point would be, whether debugging was enabled on
Linux as well or not ...

Oliver
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Francisco Cabrita]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Randy Schultz <schulra@...> wrote:

>
> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@...> spaketh thusly:
>
> |
> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
> | think
> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
> | read the
> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which
> | is
> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame
> | benchmark.
>
>
> Hrm.  IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting.  It
> tells us
> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux.
>
>

mega lol :)

> --
>
>  Randy    (schulra@...)      765.983.1283         <*>
>
> The penguin cometh
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
blog: http://sufixo.com/raw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Attilio Rao-2]

2009/9/29 Randy Schultz <schulra@...>:

>
> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@...> spaketh thusly:
>
> |
> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
> | think
> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
> | read the
> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which
> | is
> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame
> | benchmark.
>
>
> Hrm.  IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting.  It tells us
> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux.

I don't think this is the case.
The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned
debugging options off.
And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now)
misleading writing about the debugging options.

I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is
that we are slow on random, threaded  I/O operations. I think we need
to investigate more in this direction.

Attilio


--
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[István-3]

With........DTrace!!@#!#@! :)

I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is

> that we are slow on random, threaded  I/O operations. I think we need
> to investigate more in this direction.
>
> Attilio
>
>
> --
> Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
the sun shines for all
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Attilio Rao-2]

2009/9/29 István <leccine@...>:
> With........DTrace!!@#!#@! :)
>
> I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is
>> that we are slow on random, threaded  I/O operations. I think we need
>> to investigate more in this direction.

First thing, it would be interesting if someone could be reproduce
such (or similar) numbers in a reproducible manner, so that we can
start hammering down the effort.

Attilio


--
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[O. Hartmann-5]

Attilio Rao wrote:

> 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz <schulra@...>:
>> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@...> spaketh thusly:
>>
>> |
>> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
>> | think
>> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
>> | read the
>> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which
>> | is
>> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame
>> | benchmark.
>>
>>
>> Hrm.  IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting.  It tells us
>> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux.
>
> I don't think this is the case.
> The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned
> debugging options off.
> And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now)
> misleading writing about the debugging options.
>
> I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is
> that we are slow on random, threaded  I/O operations. I think we need
> to investigate more in this direction.
>
> Attilio
>
>

Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't
matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance
issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in
hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still
using the same setup and software environment. On boxes with X11, on
heavy disk I/O and/or heavy compiling, X11 clients sometimes stops for
90 seconds, mouse gets jumpy etc. This is well known and well ignored,
although I'm not the only one experiencing this.

I think this will not change soon. ZFS is, at this moment, the only
thing that keeps me with FreeBSD. In every other case, serving, number
crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number
crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu
and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Attilio Rao-2]

2009/9/30 O. Hartmann <ohartman@...>:

> Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz <schulra@...>:
>>> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@...> spaketh thusly:
>>>
>>> |
>>> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
>>> | think
>>> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
>>> | read the
>>> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which
>>> | is
>>> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame
>>> | benchmark.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hrm.  IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting.  It tells us
>>> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux.
>>
>> I don't think this is the case.
>> The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned
>> debugging options off.
>> And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now)
>> misleading writing about the debugging options.
>>
>> I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is
>> that we are slow on random, threaded  I/O operations. I think we need
>> to investigate more in this direction.
>>
>> Attilio
>>
>>
>
> Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't
> matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance
> issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in
> hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still
> using the same setup and software environment. On boxes with X11, on
> heavy disk I/O and/or heavy compiling, X11 clients sometimes stops for
> 90 seconds, mouse gets jumpy etc. This is well known and well ignored,
> although I'm not the only one experiencing this.

What do you mean with 'well known' and 'well ignored'?
Do you have pointes to such issues?

Attilio


--
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[Kip Macy]

On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:21 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't
> matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance
> issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in

> hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still
> crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number
> crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu
> and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD.


We certainly do periodically have performance issues, but it isn't  
realistic to expect us to tune for how it "feels" to you. Performance  
on concrete workloads would contribute a great deal more to the  
discussion.


-Kip
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[István-3]

makes no sense to stay with freebsd for zfs:

http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/



I think this will not change soon. ZFS is, at this moment, the only

> thing that keeps me with FreeBSD. In every other case, serving, number
> crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number
> crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu
> and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
the sun shines for all
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[István-3]

but if we measure the performance based on feelings we could advertise
freebsd:

"feels better"

do not forget the marketing value :))

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Kip Macy <kip.macy@...> wrote:

>
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:21 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't
>> matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance
>> issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in
>>
>
>  hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still
>> crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number
>> crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu
>> and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD.
>>
>
>
> We certainly do periodically have performance issues, but it isn't
> realistic to expect us to tune for how it "feels" to you. Performance on
> concrete workloads would contribute a great deal more to the discussion.
>
>
> -Kip
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
the sun shines for all
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[S4mmael]

> Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think
> this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the
> documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is
> available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark.
What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this
version, but test results are the same as in 8.0
Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason
to be suprised.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."

[István-3]

have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff?

you might have overlooked it.

yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :)

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael <s4mmael@...> wrote:

> > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think
> > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read
> the
> > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is
> > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark.
> What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this
> version, but test results are the same as in 8.0
> Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason
> to be suprised.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@... mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."
>

--
the sun shines for all
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@..."