On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:34:42AM -0500, Brian Chase wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>
> > Well, according to http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ if you want to run
> > *BSD on x86, it should be FreeBSD.
>
> Did you see the news item referenced at the top of that web page?
> http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/#netbsd2
>
> -> [Nov 1 2003] I got an email suggesting that I re-check NetBSD. The
> -> results are nothing short of astonishing. In two weeks time the
> -> NetBSD team made dramatic improvements.
> ->
> -> * socket: previously O(n), now O(1).
> -> * bind: greatly improved, but still O(n). Much less steep, though.
> -> * fork: a modest O(n) for dynamically linked programs, O(1) for
> -> statically linked.
> -> * mmap: a bad O(n) before, now O(1) with a small O(n) shadow.
> -> * touch after mmap: a bad strange graph in 1.6.1, a modest O(n) a
> -> week ago, now O(1).
> -> * http request latency: previously O(n), now O(1).
> ->
> -> Congratulations, NetBSD! NetBSD now has better scalability than
> -> FreeBSD.
Yes, he was also rather enthusiastic about NetBSDs response. My
limitation was "on x86" - one of the (unstated) reasons being that, if
necessary, one can run Linux binaries using the Linux emulation of
FreeBSD (comes in handy for running commercial/non-free binary only
stuff for Linux). If the platform limitation is lifted to "must be able
to differentiate ones from zeros", my favourite *BSD would be NetBSD,
because it runs on such a wide range of plattforms, has a very small
footprint and a nicely consistent admin interface.
But on x86 I would most likely try FreeBSD first.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Received on Sun Nov 30 2003 - 08:57:25 GMT