Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.caldera.com!enews.sgi.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!131.103.1.114!chi-news.cic.net!news.indiana.edu!not-for-mail From: Lars Hofhansl <lhofhans@indiana.edu> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:05:03 -0400 Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University Lines: 35 Message-ID: <33D13A0F.320017CB@indiana.edu> References: <01bc8d33$3f7a4f00$6870d3c6@einstein> <33C4F625.41C67EA6@together.net> <pa7nq5.r51.ln@gate> <5qnvb7$5kg@news.gvsu.edu> <9mooq5.9c4.ln@gate> <5qrdfu$ca2$1@nntp2.ba.best.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pionier.eigenmann.indiana.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:44688 > I also have found that FreeBSD > handles large loads combined with high network traffic better then > my Linux box (Yes, I still run it on another machine). My FreeBSD > box handles a number of *vary* large jobs on a regular basis that > both use heavy disk i/o, as well as heavy network i/o. While these > ran fine on my Linux box, I always noticed a *high* drop in X server > performance when they were running. -It's also my workstation. With > FreeBSD running these jobs, I can notice slower disk i/o, but the > X server never seems to miss a beat. The workstation is just as > usable when running these jobs as when it's not. This was never > really the case with my Linux box. I'd just use another machine > while my Linux box was running these jobs. With FreeBSD I no longer > have to. That is exactly what I experienced! I used Fbsd 2.1.5 and had to switch to Linux when I got my laptop. I found that large disk-intensive jobs can render a Linux box (up to 2.0.30) almost unusable whereas Fbsd 2.1.5 handled the job and was still usuable interactively (yes, also with the filesystem mounted async). I don't think things worsened in Fbsd 2.2.2. I would also like to rephrase a question: How stable is PAO for Fbsd? Has anyone experienced any problems? Lars -- Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be charged a $100 proof-reading fee. See US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and Sec.227(b)(3)(C).