Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows

Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:20:49PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
af300wsm@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi,

I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure
if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response
to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks
provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong on the last name, it just
seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently (my
apologies Kris if I'm wrong). Using the URL that the other poster,
posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did
not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows.

I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work,
someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE
and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must
admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a
programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress,
I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar
benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done.
I've done some benchmarking of Windows file system IO (NTFS) using known
tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results
are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used
Windows Enterprise Server 2003.

You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks
and fairly bad results in tasks that do a lot of system work.

While the usefulness of such benchmarks may be suspect, I'd still be
interested in seeing your results.

I have a large spreadsheet full of them, but here's a selection. The
benchmark is bonnie++:

Win2003 R2 NTFS RAID10-15 87 25 113 6425 11990
Ubuntu Server 7.10 ext3 RAID10-15 129 60 167 36114 72562
Ubuntu Server 7.10 JFS RAID10-15 131 64 167 6638 4855
Ubuntu Server 7.10 Reiser3 RAID10-15 130 60 159 30307 35101
Ubuntu Server 7.10 XFS RAID10-15 104 62 164 39 10
FreeBSD 7 UFS+SU RAID10-15 109 43 111 36551 99999
FreeBSD 7 UFS+GJ RAID10-15 50 28 103 52460 46604
FreeBSD 7 ZFS RAID10-15 95 63 180 40522 20260

The first three columns describe the system & RAID (e.g. RAID10-15 means
RAID10 created from 4 15 kRPM drives), the next three are
write/rewrite/read speed in MB/s, the last two are random files
created/deleted. I hope the mailer doesn't destroy the formatting too
much. This was on IBM ServeRAID 8k, 256 M BBU cache. (ZFS RAID was not
used).

FreeBSD UFS generally achieved low performance but it doesn't surprise
me - I'd say its disk IO has a lot of performance problems right now.
ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems,
especially for writing. I believe XFS was broken in that version of
Linux so file creation & deletion was garbage - it's "normal" in more
recent versions.

File systems were left at default except noatime was turned on where
available.

One thing where Linux's ext3 really shines is concurrent IO - blogbench
(not present in the above table) was really bad in all other OS & file
system combination, so after all my results (I have > 1000 of them), I'm
really hoping for an ext3/4 port to FreeBSD :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
    ... if it's a sound comparison. ... provided by Kris ?Kenneway? ... it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. ... benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
    ... if it's a sound comparison. ... provided by Kris ?Kenneway? ... it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. ... benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Performance benchmarks pitting FreeBSD against Windows
    ... I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure if it's a sound comparison. ... I could be wrong on the last name, it just seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently. ... Using the URL that the other poster, posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows. ... Anyway, I digress, I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: MM managers and win98 compatibility
    ... The following are my test results under Windows 98 SE. ... should give a good starting point for the authors of the different memory ... The following memory managers didn't pass all validations: ... Now, regarding benchmarks run under Windows 98 SE, the following memory ...
    (borland.public.delphi.language.basm)
  • Flash Memory Wearing Qeustions
    ... We wonder about flash memory wearing issues. ... - FAT file systems writes the file's Directory Entry Structure each ... Is to manage the given scenery possible with "standard" Windows CE 6 ... Are there wear-leveling file systems for Windows CE? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.embedded)