Someone once said this too me "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to prove this though." Every offence to the person which said this, but they are not the best admin ever, though they like to think they are (the worst kind I think) Can anyone shed any light, the reason I ask is we where debating about a network and he said OpenBSD on the network (routers firewall etc) and FreeBSD as the app servers (mail, files etc etc), which I can see makes sense.but without having evidence it's pointless making a claim. Thanks :-)
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Michal wrote:> Someone once said this too me > > "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related > I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to > prove this though." > > Every offence to the person which said this, but they are not the best admin > ever, though they like to think they are (the worst kind I think)Ack!> Can anyone shed any light, the reason I ask is we where debating about a > network and he said OpenBSD on the network (routers firewall etc) and > FreeBSD as the app servers (mail, files etc etc), which I can see makes > sense.but without having evidence it's pointless making a claim.You might want to look here (although it is a bit old by now) http://forums.devshed.com/bsd-help-31/freebsd-openbsd-netbsd-darwin--the-definitive-answer-73907.html For the masses: - NetBSD: Run on any hardware (including toasters) - OpenBSD: Be as secure as possible - FreeBSD: provide best system for x86-platforms This might be the reason why generally speaking OpenBSD is recommended for network tasks (where security matters), FreeBSD for server tasks (especially on x86-systems) where the application must be available (very large ports collection), and NetBSD for every hardware that isn't mainstream. But because we always see code exchange between the BSD systems where appropriate, all systems get more secure over time, support more platforms, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_operating_systems Afaik MP-support in OpenBSD is much less optimized than in FreeBSD, especially as FreeBSD got rid of Giant Lock in most places since some time already. There are also old benchmarks available (2003), so this is mostly interesting from a historical point of view: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ You might also want to check http://forums.2cpu.com/archive/index.php/t-17014.html http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20and%20beyond.pdf for further information.> Thanks :-)Regards, Holger
Kim Attree wrote:> NetBSD runs on just about anything. That's it's primary goal. Since I don't > have any weird hardware, I've never had a use for NetBSD.I don't use NetBSD either but some recent development that come from that camp are very interesting: * Journalling UFS ("smart" journalling, not gjournal) * PUFFS (BSD implementation of FUSE-like system [file system in userland]) * They had Xen dom0 and domU for years * They are starting to show decent results in SMP support, including a new scheduler (a bit similar to ULE); their GENERIC has SMP included * Possibly superpages, I'm not sure how to parse "Merged amd64 and i386 pmap. Large pages are always used if available" * I think they are working on their own ZFS port * They have ported or reimplemented Linux LVM (read+write+admin) There are of course other things; see for example http://www.netbsd.org/releases/formal-5/NetBSD-5.0.html I have a feeling the project has been revitalized in the last few years.
Hi, Well basically, you need to pay for additional security implementations, and this sometimes costs decrease in performance --- though i think i can always pay for that... Regards, Cem Kim Attree, 06/19/09 12:16:> You'll struggle to find a proper apples-to-apples test to prove/disprove those > statements, but commonly held BSD Lore states: > > FreeBSD offers the best performance, and it supports the most software. It's > commonly used for web or file servers and desktops. Also, FreeBSD is more > actively developed than the others. > > OpenBSD focuses on security. It runs on more platforms than FreeBSD, but less > than NetBSD. Since security is the primary goal, it's excellent for routers > and secure-by-default servers. Popular desktop applications like Mozilla and > OpenOffice are supported, but don't expect every other Linux/UNIX program to > work. > > NetBSD runs on just about anything. That's it's primary goal. Since I don't > have any weird hardware, I've never had a use for NetBSD. > > Kim Attree > IT Manager > Playsafe South Africa > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Michal > Sent: 19 June 2009 10:48 AM > To: misc@openbsd.org; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > Subject: Open Vs Free BSD > > Someone once said this too me > > > > "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related > I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to > prove this though." > > > > Every offence to the person which said this, but they are not the best admin > ever, though they like to think they are (the worst kind I think) > > > > Can anyone shed any light, the reason I ask is we where debating about a > network and he said OpenBSD on the network (routers firewall etc) and > FreeBSD as the app servers (mail, files etc etc), which I can see makes > sense.but without having evidence it's pointless making a claim. > > > > Thanks :-) > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >
On Friday 19 June 2009 04:47:35 Michal wrote:> Someone once said this too me > > "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related > I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to > prove this though." > > Every offence to the person which said this, but they are not the best > admin ever, though they like to think they are (the worst kind I think) > > Can anyone shed any light, the reason I ask is we where debating about a > network and he said OpenBSD on the network (routers firewall etc) and > FreeBSD as the app servers (mail, files etc etc), which I can see makes > sense.but without having evidence it's pointless making a claim. > > Thanks :-)Michal, What does it matter? If you aren't happy with the speed of either system you can get faster hardware. You should worry about which system is best for YOU, not how fast it is. Playing the speed game is a never ending. --STeve Andre'