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