Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!in2.uu.net!winternet.com!news From: Michael Bresnahan <gudu@winternet.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux Subject: FreeBSD page better than Linux? Date: 3 Sep 1995 17:07:05 GMT Organization: Bouncing Fried Hairy Bleefjuice Lines: 16 Message-ID: <42cnbp$mit@blackice.winternet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gudu.winternet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) X-URL: news:comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:5504 comp.os.linux:58861 I have been running Linux for a year or so now. I was always under the impression that performance was one of it strengths due to its relative small size and simplicity. Lately someone told me that FreeBSD preforms a lot better under stress (high page fault rate). This is attractive to me because I trying to run XFree86, Netscape, gcc, and XEmacs all on my 8M pentium system. Needless to say, it can be somewhat of a dog at times. I attributed my problems to a) a lack of memory, b) a cheap disk drive and or controller. I didn't consider that part of my problem could be the OS. Could anyone colaborate this info? It might save me many hours of frustration trying to install and learn a new OS. Thanks in advance. MikeB