Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!metro!metro!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!caj From: caj@tower.stc.housing.washington.edu (Craig Johnston) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.development.system Subject: Re: The better (more suitable)Unix?? FreeBSD or Linux Date: 5 Feb 1996 09:40:37 GMT Organization: Private FreeBSD site, Seattle, WA Lines: 47 Message-ID: <4f4jal$epr@nntp5.u.washington.edu> References: <4er9hp$5ng@orb.direct.ca> <strenDM7Gr4.Cn2@netcom.com> <4f27sc$13a@dyson.iquest.net> <4f4c78$dsb@aurora.romoidoy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tower.stc.housing.washington.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:13690 comp.os.linux.development.system:17245 In article <4f4c78$dsb@aurora.romoidoy.com>, H J Lu <hjl@zoom.com> wrote: >John S. Dyson (root@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: >: In article <strenDM7Gr4.Cn2@netcom.com>, >: Sam Trenholme <stren@netcom.com> wrote: >: >[Since we are comparing Linux and FreeBSD, in hopefully a constructive way, >: > I have posted this to both a Linux and a FreeBSD newsgroup] >: > >: >>On http://plastique.stanford.edu/ you'll find an extensive >: >>work comparing Linux(1.2.8), FreeBSD 2.05, and Solaris 2.4. >: >> >: >>The jist is: >: >>- Linux has best FileSystem-Performance (because it's doing FS-Updates >: >> asychronously) >: > >: >Hmmm.... I remeber a long thread where people were arguing this-- and I >: >get the sense that FFS was faster than Ext2Fs. >: > >: FFS on FreeBSD is signficantly faster on sequential transfers than EXT2FS >: on Linux. FFS on FreeBSD does synchronous meta-data updates conservatively, >: while EXT2FS on Linux is more aggressive about write-behind caching of >: meta-data (therefore the meta-data in memory is out-of-sync for a longer >: time with meta-data on disk.) The Linux approach is faster for bulk >: directory operations, but -current FreeBSD does a bit to mitigate the > >Let me put it in another way: Linux feels faster for the day-to-day >work. You usually don't copy large files very often. > Kind of a blanket statement. In my case, on a ncr53c810 SCSI chip, FreeBSD feels _much_ faster than 1.2 Linux kernels. I do hear that Linux support for this chip has improved in recent 1.3 kernels, but it was rotten in 1.2.. no disconnects, slow. A 'find' from / moves along quite nicely on FreeBSD 2.1.0 relative to my old Linux 1.2 kernel. Couldn't say anything about support in Linux 1.3.(recent)... it may well be as nice as FreeBSD's now. I have no speed complaints regarding FFS on my PCI 486-100, ncr SCSI machine with 5400 RPM disks, to say the least. Frankly, it screams. Just try em both, both the Slackware (only large linux dist. I know) and FreeBSD 2.1.0 installations are a snap. -- craig johnston caj@tower.stc.housing.washington.edu (hey, it's ethernet.) "The unexamined life should be terminated with extreme prejudice." --me