Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Daniel Kalchev]

I have already canceled few replies to this thread, but...

On 19.12.11 15:16, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
> IMHO, no offence, as always.

I feel obliged to include the same disclaimer :-)

> As were told, Phoronix used "default" setup, not tuned.

Not really. They created some weird test environment, at least for 
FreeBSD -- who knows, possibly for Linux as well.

For example, ZFS is by no means a default file system in FreeBSD. You 
need to go trough manual steps, to enable it, to build the pool, 
filesystems etc. This is because ZFS is very powerful file system and 
storage manager that needs some thinking before you implement it -- then 
it may reward you with features not found anywhere else.

Funny, ZFS is available in Linux too, and at least the file system tests 
might benefit from using one and the same file system. One would expect 
that ZFS was used for both, in a multiple-disk (way over 4 disks) setup, 
as one would expect to be the case for a 'server'.

> So? Is average user will tune it after setup? No, he'll get same defaults,
> and would expect same performance as in tests, and he probably get it.

You forget, that the "FreeBSD type" and the "Linux type" are quite 
different. This is why both worlds exist.
The FreeBSD way is to understand what you do and configure your 
environment accordingly. FreeBSD gives you flexibility to do as you 
please and in most of the possible configurations it will work. Maybe 
not optimally, but will not break on you. With FreeBSD there is never 
"one true way" to do things.
The Linux way on the other hand is to follow a "HowTo" instruction. The 
Linux OS is typically optimized for these setups and as long as you 
follow the HOWTO you are safe and well performance-wise. If you go way 
out of the prescriptions in the HOWTO, you may end up with losing data, 
crashing system or extremely poor performance.

I know, things are not that black and white, but this is the general 
difference.

> But problem really is lacking of choosing them (defaults) during install,
> for average users.

Who are the average users? It has been repeatedly said, that the "PC" 
user is always better to start with PC-BSD, because it is FreeBSD with 
"safe defaults suitable for a desktop".

> For example, few checkboxes with common sysctl tuning would be perfect,
> even if they would be marked as "Experimental", or not recommended.

By following this, we push FreeBSD into the Linux style of doing things: 
someone else decides what is good for you, without having a clue of your 
circumstances.

> Simple example - many connections for PostgreSQL is not available on
> FreeBSD out-of-box. Just google "postgresql freebsd max connection" and
> you'll see how many there bikesheds requested and same solutions posted
> again and again :)

Still, PostgreSQL is not part of FreeBSD. The PostgreSQL port clearly 
says what you need to adjust in your setup in order to use it. As do 
most other ports.

Computers do what people ask them to do -- we are far from the AI times, 
when the computers will assembe, configure and run themselves the way we 
think they should.

> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community.

Some say this is a feature ;-)

> To get in touch, you need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is service (pub.allbsd.org) which constantly building current versions. This is great,
> but at homepage of freebsd.org there is no word about it :)

There is a menu "Community" on www.freebsd.org and an "Forums" entry there.
You don't have to use mailing lists, of you prefer forums.

> I hope we all do something good about this, and things will going to change.

Many bright people do a lot of things about all of these issues.

If there is a problem, one needs to understand the problem, what causes 
the problem and what are the implications. Merely reacting on the 
symptoms never helps in the long run, as the core problem is not resolved.
So far in this thread there is no evidence of where the problem is.
There is no evidence even if there is a real problem -- except that many 
people get overly excited by benchmarks.

To the last point I could add that, with experience, one learns that: 
the benchmarks done in your environment, with your settings, with your 
OS version, on your hardware and with your set of applications does not 
help me much on my hardware/software/configuration -- except if these 
happen to be very similar.
/usr/ports/benchmarks is your friend.

Daniel