I'd be interested to see results from pre-CFS kernels.
Not that FreeBSD hasn't made major performance improvements.
Also, I think that a database test isn't a complete picture. For example, some OSes like IRIX or Mac OS X perform very well on streaming of local video and audio, but I wouldn't benchmark Oracle or PostgreSQL on either.
Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
My rule of thumb for upgrading equipment has been to not bother until we hit a full order of magnitude improvement. In other words, if 1) we can 10X the performance of a system AND 2) there have been complaints about performance, then the upgrade is probably worth it. Even then, the value is dubious. For example, in Postgres, (or any other database application) it's very typical to see 100x improvement simply by creating an index!
Maybe this is good for frail BSD egos, who have been long bruised by the mindshare success of Linux over the more historic and "more free" BSD. So be it. But it's not performance that's kept me from using BSD, it's familiarity and the pain of switching. And that's also what kept me running it yesterday, will today, and tomorrow too.
Don't get me wrong - I would hate to see BSD "die" in any meaningful way. The different cultures between Linux and BSD create a very rich, diverse environment where ideas can be tested, and the cross-feed of proven concepts and technologies (EG: Open SSH) benefits all involved!
But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!
But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!
So if you are google, and your software will all 100% run with Linux or BSD, you don't see the idea that 15% better performance means the same work with 15% less machines means something? In certain cases, 15% can mean thousands or millions of dollars, all for changing to an operating system that will basically run on the exact same hardware and run the exact same software, after a recompile.
No for most it isn't a big deal and may not make people CHANGE operating systems on existing hardware. We use both Linux and BSD, so it *might* make me consider BSD instead of Linux on the next new box. I'm likely not alone in this.
I would think the cost of changing the OS in an environment large enough such that a 15% performance increase could result in millions of savings might be an expensive proposition on its own. Despite the impression many home users or small shops have, changing an OS in a large environment is far from "free".
Compare 15% against Moore's law, and you find that it equates to a few weeks delay in the price-performance curve.
If it takes more than a few weeks to make the switch, you've already lost your benefit, as well as the potential of destabilizing your administration of those systems. Backups have be revisited, since the file tree will have changed. Network monitors will have to be updated, and tested for compatibility changes. Little one-off scripts to solve problem X or Y in a hurry will break. Admins will have to be trained, and will make more mistakes for a while until they find out what not to do. Unforeseen wrinkles will inevitably appear, Etc... Etc... Etc...
But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!
Unless it was Linux that recently edged ahead with a 15% increase, then every product manager with a Linux fanboy in his company would be indundated with demands to switch. I agree with your basic premise that one shouldn't blindly switch operating systems based on a few benchmarks. But I do have to disagree with your implication that only BSD user have ego problems.
Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
Obviously, it depends on cost:benefit, which is exactly why there is no rule of thumb. Blanket generalisations and "rules of thumb" are a bad way of making a decision for everyone that
Wrong! Commersial Database vendors will give their eye teeth to get 15% higher TPC-C scores. 15% isn't something to sneeze at when it comes to benchmarks. Now if you can get the 15% for "free" by switching to a different OS to submit your scores on.... They 100% will.
Yes, I meant that: who cares?
Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
I only use Linux as a desktop OS. I don't know much about the implications of this particular benchmark, but I care a lot about the current schedule work, for the simple fact that they have been causing me problems for my desktop use.
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that FreeBSD hasn't made major performance improvements.
Also, I think that a database test isn't a complete picture. For example, some OSes like IRIX or Mac OS X perform very well on streaming of local video and audio, but I wouldn't benchmark Oracle or PostgreSQL on either.
Seriously: who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
My rule of thumb for upgrading equipment has been to not bother until we hit a full order of magnitude improvement. In other words, if 1) we can 10X the performance of a system AND 2) there have been complaints about performance, then the upgrade is probably worth it. Even then, the value is dubious. For example, in Postgres, (or any other database application) it's very typical to see 100x improvement simply by creating an index!
Maybe this is good for frail BSD egos, who have been long bruised by the mindshare success of Linux over the more historic and "more free" BSD. So be it. But it's not performance that's kept me from using BSD, it's familiarity and the pain of switching. And that's also what kept me running it yesterday, will today, and tomorrow too.
Don't get me wrong - I would hate to see BSD "die" in any meaningful way. The different cultures between Linux and BSD create a very rich, diverse environment where ideas can be tested, and the cross-feed of proven concepts and technologies (EG: Open SSH) benefits all involved!
But the benefit of a 15% performance increase is almost never going to be sufficient reason to pick one computing technology over another!
Re:Seriously: who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you are google, and your software will all 100% run with Linux or BSD, you don't see the idea that 15% better performance means the same work with 15% less machines means something? In certain cases, 15% can mean thousands or millions of dollars, all for changing to an operating system that will basically run on the exact same hardware and run the exact same software, after a recompile.
No for most it isn't a big deal and may not make people CHANGE operating systems on existing hardware. We use both Linux and BSD, so it *might* make me consider BSD instead of Linux on the next new box. I'm likely not alone in this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but migrating new machines that are constantly be added weekly is much less expensive, and ROI *might* be reasonable in the right circumstances.
Re:Seriously: who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it takes more than a few weeks to make the switch, you've already lost your benefit, as well as the potential of destabilizing your administration of those systems. Backups have be revisited, since the file tree will have changed. Network monitors will have to be updated, and tested for compatibility changes. Little one-off scripts to solve problem X or Y in a hurry will break. Admins will have to be trained, and will make more mistakes for a while until they find out what not to do. Unforeseen wrinkles will inevitably appear, Etc... Etc... Etc...
Worth it for Google? Not a chance!
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it was Linux that recently edged ahead with a 15% increase, then every product manager with a Linux fanboy in his company would be indundated with demands to switch. I agree with your basic premise that one shouldn't blindly switch operating systems based on a few benchmarks. But I do have to disagree with your implication that only BSD user have ego problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, it depends on cost:benefit, which is exactly why there is no rule of thumb. Blanket generalisations and "rules of thumb" are a bad way of making a decision for everyone that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I meant that: who cares? Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
I only use Linux as a desktop OS. I don't know much about the implications of this particular benchmark, but I care a lot about the current schedule work, for the simple fact that they have been causing me problems for my desktop use.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/131094/ [launchpad.net]