Gnu/Vince
12-10-2001, 02:50 AM
To people who used FreeBSD and NetBSD: we often see that FreeBSD is performance orriented. Is it really more performant than NetBSD or Linux? Or is it barely noticeable?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : FreeBSD's performance
Frith
12-10-2001, 02:18 PM
I dunno; I suppose that since you get to compile all your software for your system, you might get a 5-10% speed bonus (over items that have been precompiled for 386 procs in Debian and probably most Redhat-based systems)...
and UFS(Unix Filesystem)+FFS(Fast Filesystem)+SoftUpdates(some sort of journalling) is supposed to be one of the best filesystems available for any free nix...
as for whether it's better performance-wise than Linux... I've heard people say that with the new vm in 2.4.10+, linux is finally starting to catch up to FreeBSD. I'm not so sure about this myself, though.
FreeBSD rules, IMO, but I had a bit of difficulty getting Linux-based applications working with it, such as Opera (hey, I'm on dialup, I need that cache).
and UFS(Unix Filesystem)+FFS(Fast Filesystem)+SoftUpdates(some sort of journalling) is supposed to be one of the best filesystems available for any free nix...
as for whether it's better performance-wise than Linux... I've heard people say that with the new vm in 2.4.10+, linux is finally starting to catch up to FreeBSD. I'm not so sure about this myself, though.
FreeBSD rules, IMO, but I had a bit of difficulty getting Linux-based applications working with it, such as Opera (hey, I'm on dialup, I need that cache).
Gnu/Vince
12-10-2001, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by frithiof:
<STRONG>I dunno; I suppose that since you get to compile all your software for your system, you might get a 5-10% speed bonus (over items that have been precompiled for 386 procs in Debian and probably most Redhat-based systems)...
and UFS(Unix Filesystem)+FFS(Fast Filesystem)+SoftUpdates(some sort of journalling) is supposed to be one of the best filesystems available for any free nix...
as for whether it's better performance-wise than Linux... I've heard people say that with the new vm in 2.4.10+, linux is finally starting to catch up to FreeBSD. I'm not so sure about this myself, though.
FreeBSD rules, IMO, but I had a bit of difficulty getting Linux-based applications working with it, such as Opera (hey, I'm on dialup, I need that cache).</STRONG>
I was a bit more interested about NetBSD vs FreeBSD.
<STRONG>I dunno; I suppose that since you get to compile all your software for your system, you might get a 5-10% speed bonus (over items that have been precompiled for 386 procs in Debian and probably most Redhat-based systems)...
and UFS(Unix Filesystem)+FFS(Fast Filesystem)+SoftUpdates(some sort of journalling) is supposed to be one of the best filesystems available for any free nix...
as for whether it's better performance-wise than Linux... I've heard people say that with the new vm in 2.4.10+, linux is finally starting to catch up to FreeBSD. I'm not so sure about this myself, though.
FreeBSD rules, IMO, but I had a bit of difficulty getting Linux-based applications working with it, such as Opera (hey, I'm on dialup, I need that cache).</STRONG>
I was a bit more interested about NetBSD vs FreeBSD.
Frith
12-11-2001, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Gnu/Vince:
<STRONG>I was a bit more interested about NetBSD vs FreeBSD.</STRONG>
you shouldn't have mentioned Linux then...
... we often see that FreeBSD is performance orriented. Is it really more performant than NetBSD or Linux?
as for NetBSD, I have no clue. I've only used FreeBSD and OpenBSD(just to play around with it, though).
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: frithiof ]
<STRONG>I was a bit more interested about NetBSD vs FreeBSD.</STRONG>
you shouldn't have mentioned Linux then...
... we often see that FreeBSD is performance orriented. Is it really more performant than NetBSD or Linux?
as for NetBSD, I have no clue. I've only used FreeBSD and OpenBSD(just to play around with it, though).
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: frithiof ]
jkm
12-13-2001, 08:20 PM
in my experience, freebsd has a faster bootup time, compared to netbsd, which is especially noticeable on older hardware.
other than that they are fairly comparable in terms of disk speed performance, as they both do soft updates.
other than that they are fairly comparable in terms of disk speed performance, as they both do soft updates.
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.