On 2/5/07, fooler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paolo Alexis Falcone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<plug@lists.linux.org.ph>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [plug] [OT] NetBSD 3.1 LiveCD r o c k s !
> 8. Probably a lot more to mention. Both the BSD's and Linux have
> advantages and disadvantages - it's up to the sysadmin's judgment on
> what to deploy based on their company's needs and applications.
it is not because nokia, sony, microsoft, apple, nasa, cisco, juniper to
name a few who uses freebsd.. it is the stability, reliability, security and
solid performance that counted most when looking for a server especially
during heavy loads...
Incidentally, these entities you mention are not "end-users" really
who interface with the system directly -- they usually leave the
system alone, and be alright with it running just fine even if the
memory management and process scheduling algorithms are old and slow.
OTOH, when a mouse click or key press does not respond immediately on
a Desktop or Terminal Server, we don't complain too much on
"traditional UNIX systems" -- because it's precisely these issues
which the Linux Kernel has addressed in the course of the kernel
development.
Now, if you don't care that the process scheduling is more efficient
and the memory management a lot better and just want something that
runs -- and that you don't intend to squeeze the last ounce of juice
out of your CPU/Memory/IO subsystem -- then of course the easiest
choice is the BSD line of operating systems with the premium on
"staying put".
But if you're building a cluster of machines where you'd want to
squeeze the last ounce of performance out of your machines and care
that the kernel uses as much of the hardware features (CPU instruction
sets, NUMA, SMP both logical and true) then the best bet is using a
kernel built for performance and with innovation in mind: Linux.
The 1st and 2nd most powerful in the top 500 supercomputers are
cluster of nodes running Linux. Why?
I'd guess because advances in the Linux Kernel features -- some of
which are not found in the BSD kernel (last I checked) -- allows it to
take advantage of your hardware better whether it be an alpha, a
sparc, a 386 machine, an Intel Xeon / AMD Opteron 32/64-bit, or a
handheld. The O(1) batch scheduler, true lock-less SMP process
scheduling, pre-emptive kernel threading, and support for NUMA, and
then the very well improved virtual memory subsystem and IO subsystems
which will on benchmarks beat any traditional UNIX implementation.
But then I'm Not An Expert. :-P
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
