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

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes. 
> I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well 
> without any further optimizations.

The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of 
the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and 
tested at that time.

Thus, it is safe to say that FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE is much worse than 
FreeBSD RELENG_8 (still 8.2 at the moment), because years have passed 
between both code bases, lots of bugs have been discovered and fixed and 
new technologies have been integrated. Especially in this line, the 
compiler has changed from 4.2.1 to 4.2.2.

> When the distribution does not compile with the latest compiler it's 
> simply a bug.

FreeBSD is not a distribution. It also compiles with the latest compiler 
- LLVM. :)

I find it amusing, that people want everything compiled with GCC 4.7, 
which is still very much developing, therefore highly unstable and 
(probably) full of bugs.

> Why should one try to penalize the other distribution and downgrade 
> their binaries?

Many suggested that the Linux binaries be run via the FreeBSD Linux 
emulation. Unchanged.
There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit.

> When FreeBSD has a bad default setup, there must be a reason for that. 
> Tell me this reason and show me that it's justified in form of some 
> other benchmark.

FreeBSD has safe default. It is supposed to work out of the box on 
whatever hardware you put it. As much as it has drives for that 
hardware, of course.
Once you have working installation, you may tweak it all the way you wish.

If your installation is pre-optimized, chances are it will crash all the 
time on you and there will be no easy way for you to fix, short of 
installing another "distribution".

Daniel