Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!plm From: plm@atcmp.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: Why *BSD's have smaller user base ? [WAS: Can we quit with "Linu In-Reply-To: othman@oasys.pc.my's message of Fri, 02 Dec 94 10:44:21 +800 Message-ID: <PLM.94Dec5134919@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl> X-Attribution: PLM Lines: 22 Sender: news@sci.kun.nl (News owner) Nntp-Posting-Host: atcmpg.atcmp.kun.nl Organization: AT Computing References: <3b87te$11r@adam.com.au> <m1cPwc2w165w@oasys.pc.my> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 12:49:21 GMT >> On Fri, 02 Dec 94 10:44:21 +800, othman@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad) >> said: >> As for why I'm here now - the 386bsd groups are still all talking about >> Linux and I wanted some Linux vs BSD comparisions since I've heard that >> BSD can handle more of a load without getting sluggish. OA> It shows how insecure Linux users are. I still stick to 386bsd OA> because of its FFS. This is one reason why it can handle more OA> load. When Linux runs out of file cache RAM, it becomes OA> sluggish, as shown by one file benchmark test(iozone). This is not due to the filesystem. The ext2fs filesystem is really very efficient. But, everyone will acknowledge, the Linux scheduler is very simplistic and needs a lot of improvement. Some people have just begun to experiment with better schedulers, so expect the performance under higher load to improve soon. -- Peter Mutsaers | AT Computing bv, P.O. Box 1428, plm@atcmp.nl | 6501 BK Nijmegen, The Netherlands tel. work: +31 (0)80 527248 | tel. home: +31 (0)3405 71093 | "... En..., doet ie het al?"