Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FreeBSD vs. Linux

Expand Messages
  • Chapman, Matt
    Hi, Is there any reason that xBSD is recommended for larger sites as opposed to Linux? I am planning to run 1500 people through a Linux box running a PIII 800
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      Is there any reason that xBSD is recommended for larger sites as opposed to
      Linux?

      I am planning to run 1500 people through a Linux box running a PIII 800 with
      512meg RAM and 2 36gig drives... I am hoping that it will survive... :)

      Is xBSD faster for this service?

      -matt


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chris Dunbar
      Not to start a holy war, but everything I have read indicates that xBSD is generally faster and has better resource management than Linux. Chris ... From:
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Not to start a holy war, but everything I have read indicates that xBSD
        is generally faster and has better resource management than Linux.

        Chris

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Chapman, Matt [mailto:chapmam2@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:11 PM
        To: 'dansguardian@yahoogroups.com'
        Subject: [dansguardian] FreeBSD vs. Linux

        Hi,

        Is there any reason that xBSD is recommended for larger sites as opposed
        to
        Linux?

        I am planning to run 1500 people through a Linux box running a PIII 800
        with
        512meg RAM and 2 36gig drives... I am hoping that it will survive... :)

        Is xBSD faster for this service?

        -matt


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        dansguardian-unsubscribe@egroups.com


        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • pavesi @ intmain . com
        ... correct, in most cases :) xBSD is faster in the network aspects of it, linux is generally regarded as faster in the disk read/writes. With the amount of
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2002.01.02 11:16:36 -0800 Chris Dunbar wrote:
          > Not to start a holy war, but everything I have read indicates that xBSD
          > is generally faster and has better resource management than Linux.
          >

          correct, in most cases :)

          xBSD is faster in the network aspects of it, linux is generally regarded
          as faster
          in the disk read/writes. With the amount of users (1500 I beleive) either
          distro
          will work fine for you.

          Personally, I have tested with both xBSD and Linux on a network with
          ~30-40k users,
          and the difference in speed is hardly writing about.

          Craig
        • Freddie Cash
          ... One thing to watch out for in disk I/O: Linux uses async mounts, which are really fast. However, there are *no* guarantees whatsoever to data integrity.
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > correct, in most cases :)

            > xBSD is faster in the network aspects of it, linux is generally
            > regarded as faster in the disk read/writes. With the amount of users
            > (1500 I beleive) either distro will work fine for you.

            One thing to watch out for in disk I/O: Linux uses async mounts, which
            are really fast. However, there are *no* guarantees whatsoever to data
            integrity. IOW, while async mounts can save data to disk really fast,
            it can also make data disappear really fast too. :) Journalling
            filesystems like ReiserFS or ext3fs mitigiate this risk.

            BSD filesystems are generally slower, but more reliable. Using
            SoftUpdates improves the speed to just slower than async mounts, but
            with guarantees to meta-data integrity and the like (similar to
            journalling -- better in some cases, worse in other).

            IOW, for pure I/O speed, use Linux with its default async mounts. For
            pure reliability, use a journalling filesystem. For the best
            combination of speed and reliability that I've found, use FreeBSD with
            SoftUpdates turned on.

            > Personally, I have tested with both xBSD and Linux on a network with
            > ~30-40k users, and the difference in speed is hardly writing about.

            It all depends on the tuning. Terry Lambert has tuned his FreeBSD boxes
            to handle 1.6 million simultaneous network connections without undue
            load or slow-down (dual Xeon 500MHz machine with a couple of Gigs of RAM
            or something similar, not top-of-the-line boxes). I have yet to hear of
            a Linux box that could do that. :)

            Out-of-the-box, Linux distros are generally tuned for pure I/O speed.
            FreeBSD is tuned for stability, reliability, and data integrity.
            OpenBSD is tuned for security and stability. However, they can all be
            tuned to do whatever it is that you need it to do. You just have to be
            willing to put in the time to do the reading and tuning yourself.

            It's all a matter of how much time you are willing to put into it, what
            you want to start with, and what you are familiar with.

            Cheers,
            Freddie PhoenixTek Consulting
            fcash@... Unix / Networking Services
            (250) 314-4029
          • pavesi @ intmain . com
            ... is this real outside users hitting the machines, or just inside testing? I was talking about real world testing with 30-45k users hitting the machines,
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 2, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > It all depends on the tuning. Terry Lambert has tuned his FreeBSD boxes
              > to handle 1.6 million simultaneous network connections without undue
              > load or slow-down (dual Xeon 500MHz machine with a couple of Gigs of RAM
              > or something similar, not top-of-the-line boxes). I have yet to hear of
              > a Linux box that could do that. :)

              is this real outside users hitting the machines, or just inside testing?
              I was talking about real world testing with 30-45k users hitting the
              machines,
              which right now are running RH7.2, with reiserfs on the squid partition.

              Our servers:
              duel p3 800
              1 gig ram
              duel 9 gig scsi

              nothing too outrageous, bought online for 2300.00 each I beleive..

              Craig
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.