*BSD News Article 69333


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 24 May 1996 10:43:17 -0500
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4o4lel$mu3@Mars.mcs.com>
References: <318FA7CB.8D8@hkstar.com> <4nrk6d$14h@Mercury.mcs.com> <31A2A83D.67A89A35@lambert.org> <4o1om8$156@dyson.iquest.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mars.mcs.com

In article <4o1om8$156@dyson.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <root@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:

>>] and networking speed seems reasonable. How would freeBSD be
>>] better if I don't need greater-than-ethernet speeds?
>>
>>Depends onthe loading characteristics for the machine, *exactly*
>>what you plan to use it for, etc..
>>
>Following on to Terry's comment:
>
>Since the FreeBSD networking uses less CPU, it means that more is
>available for you.  Of course, if you need very little bandwidth, then
>it isn't important.

But can you quantify that a bit?  I don't think my machines are
ever CPU bound to a point where I would notice this, but perhaps
it is just because I have cheap disks and network cards.  Can
you make a wild guess as to how much more you would have to spend
on a Linux machine to make it match freeBSD performance, at least
as measured from the other end of a network connection?   Would
it take a 120 vs. 100 Mhz Pentium, additional RAM, more efficient
network cards or...?  I'm just trying to get a real-world perspective
on the difference between the two systems.  I am much more familiar
with SysV flavored systems so Linux seems a little more friendly
but if I can't provide good performance I might switch.  

Les Mikesell
  les@mcs.com