Very Computer

by **Aidan Mark Humphrey** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 01:15:30

As a new user, I want to say how _very_ impressed I am with the performance
of FreeBSD.

Readers of alt.os.linux.mandrake have been hearing the saga of my inherited
1996 PC for several months now. Maybe the latest twist would be of interest
to some here.

The box started life in 1996, with a 120MHz Cyrix 686 (a sub Pentium I
clone), running W95. Since it wasn't up to running NT4.0 it was replaced by
a faster machine and passed on to a friend. I found it again in March,
sitting in a corner gathering dust. I guess this fate has befallen many
perfectly usable computers - you can even write a 3 year old computer off
agaist tax Germany.

Since I needed a 2nd computer, I took it home again and tried to install
Linux on it. The box has now gone through these itterations. Redhat 7.1
(didn't work), Redhat 7.2 (failed too), Slackware 7 (crude install but
worked), (upgraded 128MB EDO memory) Mandrake 8.1, (hard disk upgrade)
Mandrake 8.2, (CPU clocked) Mandrake 8.2 + (CPU replaced by PentiumMMX 166)
+ KDE3.

Mandrake is beautiful to install and maintain but the performance for KDE
was often sluggish, even with the faster CPU and 128MB memory.

So out of curiousity I installed FreeBSD - not too easy since I got caught
by the CD DMA problem, but once it was running .... Jeepers! The box
behaves as if it were an P4 on steroids.

The performance, especially for KDE3, is nothing short of astounding
compared to Linux. KDE initalisation took around 2 minutes under Linux. It
takes around 15-20 seconds under FreeBSD which is about as fast as an
AthlonXP 1800 box running Linux. Applications are not just noticably
faster, they are so much faster I can now run programs, like glchess, that
near killed the same box under Linux. I'll try to run some benchmarks but
subjectively, from GUI userland, I would say the box feels as if the CPU
clock had been trippled or quadrupled.

Mandrake is not the fastest Linux but I won't them for sluggish performance,
since even good old Slackware was massively slower than FreeBSD. Anyone
care to offer an oppinion why the same hardware/software appears so much
faster under the FreeBSD kernel? Is UFS so much faster than ext3 ? (sure
the journaling is an overhead but I didn't notice so much difference
compared to ext2).

The range of packages availble for FBSD is also excellent. I'm particularly
grateful for the full Ruby implementation.

I believe I'm going to continue using FBSD ... looks like I'm a convert.

Aidan

by **Donn Mille** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 05:23:06

> Mandrake is not the fastest Linux but I won't them for sluggish performance,
> since even good old Slackware was massively slower than FreeBSD. Anyone
> care to offer an oppinion why the same hardware/software appears so much
> faster under the FreeBSD kernel?

I've heard Gentoo Linux is supposed to be pretty fast. The Linonuts
were saying that they thought Gentoo was very fast compared to other
Linux distributions. But I think that among other things, FreeBSD has a
smaller libc, which might make it faster on its feet by comparison.
Also, Linux tends to bog down under load. The solution is to try the
O(1) scheduler instead of the stock Linux scheduler. Also try the
pre-emptive Linux kernel patch/option as well. Ext3 is very slow
compared to ufs with softupdates. However, XFS seems to be quite fast.

When I was running Gentoo, glibc took a long time to compile. Not that
it proves anything, but it may be that a large libc could bog down the
system. I dunno if it really means anything, or not.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Mina Nagui** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 05:46:30

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

| As a new user, I want to say how _very_ impressed I am with the
performance
| of FreeBSD.
|

[snip]

| Mandrake is beautiful to install and maintain but the performance for KDE
| was often sluggish, even with the faster CPU and 128MB memory.
|
| Mandrake is not the fastest Linux but I won't them for sluggish
performance,
| since even good old Slackware was massively slower than FreeBSD. Anyone
| care to offer an oppinion why the same hardware/software appears so much
| faster under the FreeBSD kernel? Is UFS so much faster than ext3 ? (sure
| the journaling is an overhead but I didn't notice so much difference
| compared to ext2).
|
| The range of packages availble for FBSD is also excellent. I'm
particularly
| grateful for the full Ruby implementation.
|
| I believe I'm going to continue using FBSD ... looks like I'm a convert.

I have no intention to break your bubble here, FreeBSD is a GREAT OS and
I use it myself.

However, do you understand that linux is nothing but a "kernel" ?
EVERYTHING else is part of the distro ?

Have you optimized your linux kernels and compiled a custom one that
fits your needs and machine ? Have you improved your hard disk
performance with 'hdparm' ? Have you followed one of the online
tutorials on improving the performance of a linux box ? Have you
optimized the disk IO by using one of the faster FSs such as XFS or
ReiserFS ?

There's a *lot* that could be done on a linux box to dramatically
improve it's performance. Most distros aim to please the masses by
making by using the most-widely-acceptable settings that will work.

Just my $0.02. I'm in no way trying to compare the two OSs, just
stating a few points I think are important to keep in mind before you
forever brand linux as "slow".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9KKimeS99pGMif6wRAlPYAKCSv+/rwuVZqc4zh+Sf0L6bQGQnSQCfX9MR
giYvdVxGa69D80MbaXABRnk=
=nSHn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **mic..** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 21:25:18

Quote:> The performance, especially for KDE3, is nothing short of astounding
> compared to Linux. KDE initalisation took around 2 minutes under Linux. It
> takes around 15-20 seconds under FreeBSD which is about as fast as an
> AthlonXP 1800 box running Linux. Applications are not just noticably
> faster, they are so much faster I can now run programs, like glchess, that
> near killed the same box under Linux. I'll try to run some benchmarks but
> subjectively, from GUI userland, I would say the box feels as if the CPU
> clock had been trippled or quadrupled.

I have still not installed KDE3, but it is said that it is faster than KDE2.
This may be the explanation. Because frankly, while i am a FreeBSD user and
don't want to switch to Linux, i don't see any performance difference between
those systems with the boxes i have access to. As a matter of fact my main
office machine is an Athlon 1.1 Ghz, that is a very fast box compared to
yours, running FreeBSD 4.6, and i can tell you that KDE2 takes ages to
startup. In fact i have also a P II 300 Mhz and there is not much difference
between the two in this respect. I have never seen big differences with Linux
machines either.

Quote:> Mandrake is not the fastest Linux but I won't them for sluggish performance,
> since even good old Slackware was massively slower than FreeBSD. Anyone
> care to offer an oppinion why the same hardware/software appears so much
> faster under the FreeBSD kernel? Is UFS so much faster than ext3 ? (sure
> the journaling is an overhead but I didn't notice so much difference
> compared to ext2).

UFS+softupdates is extremely fast indeed, but this does not make big
difference with ext2, except of course for security.

Quote:> The range of packages availble for FBSD is also excellent. I'm particularly
> grateful for the full Ruby implementation.

Yes, this is one of the main "selling" points of FreeBSD compared to the other
*BSD and even Linux distros. Because while under Linux you have access to
almost every software under the sun, in many cases it is in rpm form and you
have to upgrade 50% of your system before finally getting your soft running.
If you are lucky you have not destroyed your machine in the meantime.

Quote:> I believe I'm going to continue using FBSD ... looks like I'm a convert.
> Aidan

--
Michel Talon

by **mic..** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 21:27:01

>> Mandrake is not the fastest Linux but I won't them for sluggish performance,
>> since even good old Slackware was massively slower than FreeBSD. Anyone
>> care to offer an oppinion why the same hardware/software appears so much
>> faster under the FreeBSD kernel?
> I've heard Gentoo Linux is supposed to be pretty fast. The Linonuts
> were saying that they thought Gentoo was very fast compared to other
> Linux distributions. But I think that among other things, FreeBSD has a
> smaller libc, which might make it faster on its feet by comparison.
> Also, Linux tends to bog down under load. The solution is to try the
> O(1) scheduler instead of the stock Linux scheduler. Also try the
> pre-emptive Linux kernel patch/option as well. Ext3 is very slow
> compared to ufs with softupdates. However, XFS seems to be quite fast.
> When I was running Gentoo, glibc took a long time to compile. Not that
> it proves anything, but it may be that a large libc could bog down the
> system. I dunno if it really means anything, or not.

glibc contains everything one can imagine, plus things you cannot :)
But fortunately only pages in use are brought in memory !

Quote:> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

--
Michel Talon

by **mic..** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 21:38:04

> Have you optimized your linux kernels and compiled a custom one that
> fits your needs and machine ? Have you improved your hard disk
> performance with 'hdparm' ? Have you followed one of the online
> tutorials on improving the performance of a linux box ? Have you
> optimized the disk IO by using one of the faster FSs such as XFS or
> ReiserFS ?
> There's a *lot* that could be done on a linux box to dramatically
> improve it's performance. Most distros aim to please the masses by
> making by using the most-widely-acceptable settings that will work.

I agree with you. I have done this myself on my Linux box at home. It
took me ages to find the appropriate kernel options (in fact including
the driver for the particular chipset of my mobo) and play with hdparm
until i got satisfactory performances. In fact nowhere is it mentioned in the
hdparm manpage (which moreover is next to impossible to understand) that
you have to recompile kernel with appropriate drivers to use it fully.
Adding that you must patch your kernel with scheduler patches, use
"*" filesystems, and so on, you arrive at the conclusion that only
people with special dedication can run Linux machines to full performance.
The great virtue of FreeBSD is that, out of the box, it works, and works well.
The price is that on some very few bizarre machines (there are examples in
the recent posts) there are problems at the installation level, which have
simple workarounds. Second, man pages are not *as too many Linux man
pages. Third the freebsd handbook is clear, well written, and not a huge pile
of contradictory and out of date stuff like the HOWTOS.
These are the advantages of FreeBSD. Linux has of course its own, lots of
drivers, lots of software (in particular commercial) running on it, and
generally good performances.

--
Michel Talon

by **Joost Kremer** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:15:17

>> The range of packages availble for FBSD is also excellent. I'm particularly
>> grateful for the full Ruby implementation.

> Yes, this is one of the main "selling" points of FreeBSD compared to the other
> *BSD and even Linux distros. Because while under Linux you have access to
> almost every software under the sun, in many cases it is in rpm form and you
> have to upgrade 50% of your system before finally getting your soft running.
> If you are lucky you have not destroyed your machine in the meantime.

mmm... the only software that is available *only* in rpm form is
commercial software. (and even that is often available as a binary tar
ball.) all other software is available as source as well, so you can
always compile yourself. rpm is usually something to stay away from...

--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
Ask 8 slackers how to do something, get 10 answers.
-- sl in alt.os.linux.slackware

by **Donn Mille** » Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:40:20

> Adding that you must patch your kernel with scheduler patches, use
> "*" filesystems, and so on, you arrive at the conclusion that only
> people with special dedication can run Linux machines to full performance.
> The great virtue of FreeBSD is that, out of the box, it works, and works well.
> The price is that on some very few bizarre machines (there are examples in
> the recent posts) there are problems at the installation level, which have
> simple workarounds. Second, man pages are not *as too many Linux man
> pages. Third the freebsd handbook is clear, well written, and not a huge pile
> of contradictory and out of date stuff like the HOWTOS.

Yep. There are so many kernel patches floating around there, like the
O(1) scheduler patch, various VM patches, pre-emptive patch, etc. etc.
XFS gives pretty good performance, but there are some problems with XFS
and the pre-emptive option. The Linux people will tell you the solution
is simple: just download the latest XFS sources from SGI's cvs server,
patch the kernel, and re-compile the kernel. Also, XFS has been
problematic unless I zero'd out the partition first with dd. On a 13+GB
partition, this takes over 20 minutes. Linux seemed to take more
tinkering, but the tinkering does pay off for the dedicated Linux user.
FreeBSD's ufs+softupdates gives excellent speed, perhaps almost as
good as XFS, and it works out of the box.

Quote:> These are the advantages of FreeBSD. Linux has of course its own, lots of
> drivers, lots of software (in particular commercial) running on it, and
> generally good performances.

Also, software testing seems to be more thorough on Linux. For example,
compare the Linux and FreeBSD versions of Mozilla. The FreeBSD version
seems to hog more memory, and doesn't respect the memory cache settings.
Also the FreeBSD version has some intermittent latencies with DNS
lookups that the Linux version doesn't have. It's apparent that more
Mozilla developers run Linux than FreeBSD, so the FreeBSD version isn't
tested as thoroughly.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.veryComputer.com/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Aidan Mark Humphrey** » Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:20:26

> Have you optimized your linux kernels and compiled a custom one that
> fits your needs and machine ? Have you improved your hard disk
> performance with 'hdparm' ? Have you followed one of the online
> tutorials on improving the performance of a linux box ? Have you
> optimized the disk IO by using one of the faster FSs such as XFS or
> ReiserFS ?

> Just my $0.02. I'm in no way trying to compare the two OSs, just
> stating a few points I think are important to keep in mind before you
> forever brand linux as "slow".

Your point is well made.

First I should say I that I _don't_ characterise Linux as slow. I was very
happy with the performance of the old box under Linux. My observation was
simply that under BSD the same machine exhibits much much faster
performance. Clearly using slow hardware will exagerate the differnce.

I have to admit that I am running a standard mandrake configured Kernel (and
a standard BSE kernel for that matter). My understanding was that custom
kernels were less of an issue with Linux than BSE since Linux configures
its kernel at boot time. Urban myth?

Yes, I've tried several recommened optimisations with hdparam and seen no
noticable improvement.

To the other optimisation points you raise: I have been active here ... The
box has been through many installations and configurations. Reister, ext2
and ext3 have all been tried out, but not XFS yet. Slackware and ext2
definately run faster than Mandrake but we are talking 20% faster or so.
Its difficult to say if Slack/ext2 was faster due to the kernel or the FS.
However this is not even in the same ball park as BSD where the subjective
performance is at least double.

Just out of curiousity I'll try thining out the mandrake kernel and building
an custom BSD kernel. Interesting to see how the compere then.

Aidan

by **Aidan Mark Humphrey** » Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:31:58

> I had a Linux box that was drag-ass slow once.

> When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the distro I was
> using (Caldera, I think... it's been a while) often didn't
> configure caching correctly and even with plenty of
> memory, it ran slow until caching was configured and
> enabled. So... I correctly configured and enabled
> caching. And then the machine screamed.

Good point but to be clear about my statement: some Linux users have been
complaining _specifically_ about KDE performance. The KDE performance of
FreeBSD is massively better on _my_ hardware, using the unoptimised
_default_ configuration.

I have no complaints about Mandrake Linux performance in general. Linux,
under a terminal or under more light-weight GUIs, such as fluxbox, runs
very respectably.

Caching is definitely configured and enabled in the default Linux kernel on
my machine.

Aidan

by **Donn Mille** » Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:23:48

> I'm typing this on a FreeBSD machine that has also Debians Woody
> release installed. There is no noticable difference in response time
> running either OS (plus X, blackbox, XEmacs, Mozilla, StarOffice and a
> few xterms).

Of course there's a difference. FreeBSD is much smoother and the
multitasking is weighted much nicer under medium to heavy loads than
Linux. Plus, Linux's VM system tends to wait and wait and wait and wait
and then flush huge amounts of buffers at once.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Francesc** » Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:58:16

I agree with you about the documention.

I haven't looked at FreeBSD before today, but when I was skimming the
handbook I was almost swayed into going ahead with it.

The big glitch is the install doesn't seem nearly as easy as Mandrake
was.

>>Have you optimized your linux kernels and compiled a custom one that
>>fits your needs and machine ? Have you improved your hard disk
>>performance with 'hdparm' ? Have you followed one of the online
>>tutorials on improving the performance of a linux box ? Have you
>>optimized the disk IO by using one of the faster FSs such as XFS or
>>ReiserFS ?

>>There's a *lot* that could be done on a linux box to dramatically
>>improve it's performance. Most distros aim to please the masses by
>>making by using the most-widely-acceptable settings that will work.

>I agree with you. I have done this myself on my Linux box at home. It
>took me ages to find the appropriate kernel options (in fact including
>the driver for the particular chipset of my mobo) and play with hdparm
>until i got satisfactory performances. In fact nowhere is it mentioned in the
>hdparm manpage (which moreover is next to impossible to understand) that
>you have to recompile kernel with appropriate drivers to use it fully.
>Adding that you must patch your kernel with scheduler patches, use
>"*" filesystems, and so on, you arrive at the conclusion that only
>people with special dedication can run Linux machines to full performance.
>The great virtue of FreeBSD is that, out of the box, it works, and works well.
>The price is that on some very few bizarre machines (there are examples in
>the recent posts) there are problems at the installation level, which have
>simple workarounds. Second, man pages are not *as too many Linux man
>pages. Third the freebsd handbook is clear, well written, and not a huge pile
>of contradictory and out of date stuff like the HOWTOS.
>These are the advantages of FreeBSD. Linux has of course its own, lots of
>drivers, lots of software (in particular commercial) running on it, and
>generally good performances.

by **Tim Jud** » Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:46:53

> I agree with you about the documention.

> I haven't looked at FreeBSD before today, but when I was skimming the
> handbook I was almost swayed into going ahead with it.

> The big glitch is the install doesn't seem nearly as easy as Mandrake
> was.

I disagree. FreeBSD was the easiest install I've ever had. The
defaults were reasonable, the questions made sense what it was doing at
that time. Just lovely! Mandrake wouldn't install for me. If you
define "install easy" being a GUI, not text-mode.. I feel sorry for
you.

Very Computer

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow

Wow, Wow, Wow