Greetings All,
I just wanted to thank everyone for the responses! I did not mean to start
such a debated thread. I'm glad to have the information about why FreeBSD
place so poorly in these "idiot's" tests. I'll have to write SysAdmin a
letter now and ask them why the hell they would publish such an article. I
hope I'm not wasting my money subscribing to the magazine...
Again, thank you all for the information! I have been using FreeBSD since
Release-1.1 (I downloaded the binary install disks via AOL!!) and have used
every version since. I have also tried Solaris, Linux, BSDI, Windows, and
NetBSD, but I keep coming back to FreeBSD. One day I hope to be able to
contribute my share as well.
Thanks,
Matthew
At 02:42 PM 6/16/2001 -0400, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running hard core
>network apps. The results are kind of disturbing, with FreeBSD (4.2)
>coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k, and Solaris (Intel).
>
>http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
>
>The tests were performed against the TCP/IP implementation on these
>platforms with different system calls. File systems tests (EXT2 for
>Linux, UFS for FreeBSD and Solaris, and NTFS for Windows 2000) were
>performed by creating writing, and reading 10,000 files in the same
>directory, increasing the file size from 4K to 128K. Tests of various
>network applications based on number of simultaneous connections,
>process-based vs. thread-based, and sync vs. async connection handling
>were also performed.
>
>Hope it might be helpful to you...
>
>Matthew
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
