if i may suggest, i think it would be better if some of you can provide relevant urls as a supporting document (for the benefit of those who are interested). :)
On 2/4/07, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
