[TriLUG] Slightly OT: Which *BSD?

[Aaron S. Joyner]

Brandon L. Newport wrote:

>The main thing we noticed was the network performance...it did not seem
>to really slow under high loads.  However overall it just tested
>better...disk IO/mem/CPU/etc  We tested with databases, web servers,
>ftp, etc.  Over all it just did better.  That was a little over two
>years ago.  We will probably test again next year.  One interesting
>thing to note for anyone who has the on board promise IDE raid
>cards...they work 200% better in FreeBSD than Linux....you can find a
>dozen google search that talk about it.  It is kinda interesting.  Our
>corporate web server uses IDE drives.  Other than we dont have enough
>memory in it right now it does great!!! (shoe maker kids)
>
>-brandon
>
>  
>
Okay, I feel I have to set the record straight on this one.  Depending 
on your application, it's entirely possible that you'd see equal or 
better performance in some applications with OpenBSD.  But to say that 
performance across the board is better is at the least, misleading.  As 
opposed to attempting to clarify all of the results here, I'll just post 
a link to the definitive comparison (at least in my mind) of the various 
open source *NIX solutions.  Check it out here: 
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/  In summary, some of the OSes are 
better at some things than others, and none of them have a uncontested 
crown in all circumstances.  This study deals particularly with how an 
OS scales under higher loads, but if read carefully also provides 
insight into which core functions of each OS have been optimized in 
which ways.

Aaron S. Joyner