Barrapunto

No he tenido la oportunidad de probarlos en profundidad, pero siempre oigo maravillas de los sistemas "algoBSD".

Habría que mirar por qué, pese a todo, Linux se sigue imponiendo no sólo en el escritorio y servidores, sino también en dispositivos pequeños, sistemas empotrados, y el mundo académico.

Necesitarán un "UbuntuBSD?" XDD

Pero con MySQL parece que Linux sigue delante [kernel.org] Es una buena noticia que FreeBSD se haya vuelto a poner a la par con Linux, ahora habrá competencia de la buena y ambos sistemas libres seguro que avanzarán favorablemente.

Al día siguiente un desarrollador del Kernel de Linux, Nick Piggin, repitió los tests y apareció que Linux ganaba a FreeBSD en todos los test!! [kernel.org]
Conclusión: habrá que esperar unos días a ver que pasa con esos benchmark. Cuando los ejecuta gente de FreeBSD gana FreeBSD y cuando los ejecuta gente de Linux gana Linux.

Sinceramente, no me lo trago. Un 15% es mucho por lo que me parece exagerado. Especialmente si tenemos en cuenta los últimos avances en el kernel de Linux. Supongo que el tío tiene su FreeBSD superoptimizado mientras que para Linux instaló la primera distro que pilló.

Que es uno de los que hizo la comparatativa:

"Hi, I am the one who performed these benchmarks and I'd like to clarify a couple of things:

* The point of this benchmark is not to unilaterally declare victory over Linux, but to point out that FreeBSD is once again competitive with it on modern high-end hardware and certain workloads. Of course, we are working on other workloads too, and currently perform better than Linux on other benchmarks, and still worse on others. There will no doubt be further friendly competition between the two OSes that will work to the benefit of both. Our message to the Linux developers is that they should not expect to get away with resting on their laurels :-)

* I benchmarked both mysql and postgresql, and FreeBSD 7.0 performs better than all Linux kernels (at least up to 2.6.23) with both databases. Incidentally postgresql is much faster than mysql, contradicting common wisdom. Other fun facts are that mysql 5.0.51 has poorer scaling than 5.0.47, and 5.1.x has *much* worse performance and scaling than 5.0.47 on my tests.

* I benchmarked several versions of Linux including 2.6.20.x, 2.6.22 and 2.6.23. 2.6.20.x has terrible performance graph2 [freebsd.org]. This graph is from Feb 2007 and the FreeBSD performance also improved after this point.

* 2.6.22 (which is pre-CFS) mostly fixed this but still performs worse than FreeBSD graph1 [freebsd.org]. 2.6.23 included the new scheduler and was a major performance regression. I did not yet retest with 2.6.24, so maybe they have fixed CFS by now.

* Contrary to some commenter's assertions that this is not a CPU benchmark, this benchmark is *extremely* sensitive to CPU performance and especially scheduling (in fact, as noted in the PDF, I/O performance is not a factor here). The scheduler really matters here, which is why Linux took a big hit when they switched to CFS (similarly, on FreeBSD the 4BSD scheduler performs much worse). Tuning the scheduler is critical to performance on this kind of workload. The other critical aspect is having a highly optimized kernel without concurrency bottlenecks. 2.6.20 fell over on kernel concurrency, and 2.6.23 fell over with the scheduler.

Hope this helps to clarify things."

FreeBSD está muy bien, pero todo el mundo sabe que está muerto (Netcraft lo confirma).

Por lo tanto, debe de estar lleno de zombies ¿no?

(es broma, es bromaaa: me encanta que haya una iniciativa libre con capacidad de competir con Linux y, además, con una licencia que conceptualemente también compite con la de Linux).

Falta probarlo sobre un Mac OS X