4 ms·

> So how does Linux compare now with FreeBSD in terms of throughput and latency? I remember like 10 years ago Linux had issues with throughput, which is why Net

> So how does Linux compare now with FreeBSD in terms of throughput and latency? I remember like 10 years ago Linux had issues with throughput, which is why Netflix went with FreeBSD. Are they similar now? I believe the open connect team at Netflix choose FreeBSD because a lot of them used to work at Yahoo and had lot's of FreeBSD experience. Not so much because of a performance difference between the two. As for now, the two network stacks are pretty equal when it comes to performance, some work loads are better on FreeBSD some are better on Linux.

ovao 9y ago
Can you go into more detail about what workloads are better suited for Linux and FreeBSD?
- 2trill2spill 9y ago
  Yea no problem, I'm having a hard time finding all the articles/ benchmarks I remember reading about this subject. But this paper has some useful info[1]. Basically FreeBSD is good for throughput. In the paper I linked to you can see FreeBSD has a higher throughput than Linux, but you can also see that FreeBSD is using more CPU than Linux is. Also Linux generally has lower latency than FreeBSD, which makes sense because Linux is used extensively by high frequency trading firms. However there are still HFT firms using FreeBSD. I'll edit this post as I find the other articles, videos and benchmarks about this subject. Edit: I don't really care for Phoronix benchmarks but here's some benchmarks showing Linux winning some and FreeBSD winning some benchmarks[2]. [1]: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2013/papers/hotnets-final43.pdf http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2013/papers/hotnets-f... [2]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=netperf-bsd-linux&num=1 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=netperf-b...
  - ovao 9y ago
    Lots to dig into here, thanks!
    - 2trill2spill 9y ago
      I also like this talk by a George Neville-Neil a FreeBSD networking engineer. Start at 57:45 [1]. That part of the talk is about differences in how the two different Network stacks are implemented. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mv_oKFzACM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mv_oKFzACM

ovao 9y ago

Can you go into more detail about what workloads are better suited for Linux and FreeBSD?

2trill2spill 9y ago
Yea no problem, I'm having a hard time finding all the articles/ benchmarks I remember reading about this subject. But this paper has some useful info[1]. Basically FreeBSD is good for throughput. In the paper I linked to you can see FreeBSD has a higher throughput than Linux, but you can also see that FreeBSD is using more CPU than Linux is. Also Linux generally has lower latency than FreeBSD, which makes sense because Linux is used extensively by high frequency trading firms. However there are still HFT firms using FreeBSD. I'll edit this post as I find the other articles, videos and benchmarks about this subject. Edit: I don't really care for Phoronix benchmarks but here's some benchmarks showing Linux winning some and FreeBSD winning some benchmarks[2]. [1]: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2013/papers/hotnets-final43.pdf http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2013/papers/hotnets-f... [2]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=netperf-bsd-linux&num=1 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=netperf-b...
- ovao 9y ago
  Lots to dig into here, thanks!
  - 2trill2spill 9y ago
    I also like this talk by a George Neville-Neil a FreeBSD networking engineer. Start at 57:45 [1]. That part of the talk is about differences in how the two different Network stacks are implemented. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mv_oKFzACM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mv_oKFzACM