5 ms·

Not at all... Definitely not for the last decade or so. Linux beats illumos in speed in every category. Some of these categories are not even close. Linux even

Not at all... Definitely not for the last decade or so. Linux beats illumos in speed in every category. Some of these categories are not even close. Linux even outperformed illumos in ZFS!

Annatar 7y ago
No sorry, but that's incorrect. I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems, who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it.
- Tester0x1 7y ago
  >No sorry, but that's incorrect. WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance. >I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems As did I, and the former lead performance engineer at Joyent says Linux beats illumos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 >who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. Hopefully you trust the anecdotes of the lead performance engineer that worked on illumos LOL! >And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: I also ran it with the same hardware, and Linux beats it in pretty much every category. You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensolaris_schweinshaxe&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola... >for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s. >HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I got 40x response time increases on Linux; and so on, and so forth. >I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. Wow, so slow. We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris. > I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! AHAHAHAHA Slowlaris could barely make it through a day without NFS crashing. We were regularly peaking in the 800 MB/s range with Linux, that's faster than Slowlaris crashing on the EMC SAN at work! >So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Ah, so you'll stick with Linux! Awesome! >Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Winning the dunce award for antiquated OSes, yep. >Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it. Good luck with the OS that runs the fastest super computers in the world, all of HFT, etc.? Yep, we'll need luck to leverage the best platform to push us into the future. Thanks!
  - Annatar 7y ago
    "WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance." I don't believe that you making an argument in good faith here. "You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative." It's neither slow, nor do I live in the past: illumos is being very actively developed and not only does it beat Linux in everything, it has more features. And yes it is my prerogative and I shall continue running it, because I like rock-solid, high performance systems that I can just deploy and leave running for years without having to tune or maintain. I love that. "AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s." Are you making a good faith argument here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 Brendan has gone rogue after a fallout and is not to be trusted. He became a hostile witness the moment he abandoned the illumos movement and gave into trend-pandering because of what vast majority is running. Anyone pandering to trends has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it were Scott McNealy himself: you start advocating for a piece of shit technology like GNU, Linux, or GNU/Linux, I'm done with you. It's not up for discussion. "We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris." Correct on both counts! What do you know? Yes you had to get special switches and equipment while I completely saturated an entire switch with a piece of junk DELL, and here comes the kicker: running Solaris 10 for i86pc... without any tuning whatsoever! Out of the box performance on a total piece of junk P. C. tin-bucket, DELL hardware. I think I shall stick with Solaris and SmartOS, thank-you-very-much! "Ah, so you'll stick with Linux!" I'd rather drop dead.
    - Tester0x1 7y ago
      >I don't believe that you making an argument in good faith here. You always claim people are making "bad faith" arguments when you get called out and owned. It's a poor, thinly veiled response that everyone sees through. Annatard claiming "bad faith" translates to: "REEEE!!! I got owned, let me start foaming!" >It's neither slow Yes, it objectively and statistically is, as shown in pretty much any test/metric ever in the past decade or so. I even linked examples to which you have no retort. >nor do I live in the past: illumos is being very actively developed and not only does it beat Linux in everything, it has more features WRONG! It's nowhere near as actively developed as Linux (there are Linux sub-components that are more actively developed than illumos), and it can't beat Linux in anything, and has LESS features. illumos still doesn't have GPGPU support last I remember... nor does it have PCI passthrough in 2019... IOMMU? LOL! >Brendan has gone rogue after a fallout and is not to be trusted. He became a hostile witness the moment he abandoned the illumos movement and gave into trend-pandering because of what vast majority is running. Anyone pandering to trends has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it were Scott McNealy himself: you start advocating for a piece of shit technology like GNU, Linux, or GNU/Linux, I'm done with you. It's not up for discussion. Are you seeing your doctor about your delusions? You need to seek help. Gregg specifically outlined exactly why Linux has won, and again, aside from your delusional dribbling, you have no retort. >Correct on both counts! What do you know? Yes you had to get special switches and equipment while I completely saturated an entire switch with a piece of junk DELL, and here comes the kicker: running Solaris 10 for i86pc... without any tuning whatsoever! Is this even English? Pure nonsensical dribbling. You could never saturate an entire switch with illumos, even with tuning. Linux outperforms illumos/Solaris, and it has for years. >I'd rather drop dead. I can't imagine saying something this autistic in 2019.
Tester0x2 7y ago
Copy/paste the dead comment, for posterity to show Annatard getting rekt yet again: >No sorry, but that's incorrect. WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance. >I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems As did I, and the former lead performance engineer at Joyent says Linux beats illumos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 >who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. Hopefully you trust the anecdotes of the lead performance engineer that worked on illumos LOL! >And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: I also ran it with the same hardware, and Linux beats it in pretty much every category. You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola.. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola.... >for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s. >HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I got 40x response time increases on Linux; and so on, and so forth. >I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. Wow, so slow. We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris. > I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! AHAHAHAHA Slowlaris could barely make it through a day without NFS crashing. We were regularly peaking in the 800 MB/s range with Linux, that's faster than Slowlaris crashing on the EMC SAN at work! >So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Ah, so you'll stick with Linux! Awesome! >Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Winning the dunce award for antiquated OSes, yep. >Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it. Good luck with the OS that runs the fastest super computers in the world, all of HFT, etc.? Yep, we'll need luck to leverage the best platform to push us into the future. Thanks!

Not at all... Definitely not for the last decade or so. Linux beats illumos in speed in every category. Some of these categories are not even close. Linux even outperformed illumos in ZFS!

Annatar 7y ago

No sorry, but that's incorrect. I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems, who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it.

Tester0x1 7y ago
>No sorry, but that's incorrect. WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance. >I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems As did I, and the former lead performance engineer at Joyent says Linux beats illumos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 >who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. Hopefully you trust the anecdotes of the lead performance engineer that worked on illumos LOL! >And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: I also ran it with the same hardware, and Linux beats it in pretty much every category. You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensolaris_schweinshaxe&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola... >for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s. >HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I got 40x response time increases on Linux; and so on, and so forth. >I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. Wow, so slow. We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris. > I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! AHAHAHAHA Slowlaris could barely make it through a day without NFS crashing. We were regularly peaking in the 800 MB/s range with Linux, that's faster than Slowlaris crashing on the EMC SAN at work! >So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Ah, so you'll stick with Linux! Awesome! >Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Winning the dunce award for antiquated OSes, yep. >Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it. Good luck with the OS that runs the fastest super computers in the world, all of HFT, etc.? Yep, we'll need luck to leverage the best platform to push us into the future. Thanks!
- Annatar 7y ago
  "WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance." I don't believe that you making an argument in good faith here. "You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative." It's neither slow, nor do I live in the past: illumos is being very actively developed and not only does it beat Linux in everything, it has more features. And yes it is my prerogative and I shall continue running it, because I like rock-solid, high performance systems that I can just deploy and leave running for years without having to tune or maintain. I love that. "AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s." Are you making a good faith argument here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 Brendan has gone rogue after a fallout and is not to be trusted. He became a hostile witness the moment he abandoned the illumos movement and gave into trend-pandering because of what vast majority is running. Anyone pandering to trends has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it were Scott McNealy himself: you start advocating for a piece of shit technology like GNU, Linux, or GNU/Linux, I'm done with you. It's not up for discussion. "We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris." Correct on both counts! What do you know? Yes you had to get special switches and equipment while I completely saturated an entire switch with a piece of junk DELL, and here comes the kicker: running Solaris 10 for i86pc... without any tuning whatsoever! Out of the box performance on a total piece of junk P. C. tin-bucket, DELL hardware. I think I shall stick with Solaris and SmartOS, thank-you-very-much! "Ah, so you'll stick with Linux!" I'd rather drop dead.
  - Tester0x1 7y ago
    >I don't believe that you making an argument in good faith here. You always claim people are making "bad faith" arguments when you get called out and owned. It's a poor, thinly veiled response that everyone sees through. Annatard claiming "bad faith" translates to: "REEEE!!! I got owned, let me start foaming!" >It's neither slow Yes, it objectively and statistically is, as shown in pretty much any test/metric ever in the past decade or so. I even linked examples to which you have no retort. >nor do I live in the past: illumos is being very actively developed and not only does it beat Linux in everything, it has more features WRONG! It's nowhere near as actively developed as Linux (there are Linux sub-components that are more actively developed than illumos), and it can't beat Linux in anything, and has LESS features. illumos still doesn't have GPGPU support last I remember... nor does it have PCI passthrough in 2019... IOMMU? LOL! >Brendan has gone rogue after a fallout and is not to be trusted. He became a hostile witness the moment he abandoned the illumos movement and gave into trend-pandering because of what vast majority is running. Anyone pandering to trends has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it were Scott McNealy himself: you start advocating for a piece of shit technology like GNU, Linux, or GNU/Linux, I'm done with you. It's not up for discussion. Are you seeing your doctor about your delusions? You need to seek help. Gregg specifically outlined exactly why Linux has won, and again, aside from your delusional dribbling, you have no retort. >Correct on both counts! What do you know? Yes you had to get special switches and equipment while I completely saturated an entire switch with a piece of junk DELL, and here comes the kicker: running Solaris 10 for i86pc... without any tuning whatsoever! Is this even English? Pure nonsensical dribbling. You could never saturate an entire switch with illumos, even with tuning. Linux outperforms illumos/Solaris, and it has for years. >I'd rather drop dead. I can't imagine saying something this autistic in 2019.

Tester0x2 7y ago

Copy/paste the dead comment, for posterity to show Annatard getting rekt yet again: >No sorry, but that's incorrect. WRONG! It is factually correct that Linux beats illumos in performance. >I saw the bug requests myself when the database was still accessible, and I read multiple accounts from engineers working on performance improvements at Sun Microsystems As did I, and the former lead performance engineer at Joyent says Linux beats illumos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16382456 >who I trust far more than anecdotal, arbitrary claim from you here in "Hacker" "News" of all places, which has meanwhile become notorious. Hopefully you trust the anecdotes of the lead performance engineer that worked on illumos LOL! >And considering I know how fast illumos is because I ran Solaris and Linux on the same hardware, I'll just stick with running SmartOS, thank you very much: I also ran it with the same hardware, and Linux beats it in pretty much every category. You can continue to use your Slowlaris based OS and live in the past. Your prerogative. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola.. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=opensola.... >for example, Solaris would regularly peak to 85 MB/s while Linux could barely muster 55 MB/s on the same hardware... AHAHAHA I got more performance from my junk server on Linux 10 years ago, easily beating Solaris, regularly peaking around 100 MB/s. >HTTP response times are up to 10x faster on Solaris; and so on, and so forth. I got 40x response time increases on Linux; and so on, and so forth. >I've never seen Linux max out 40 Gbps per second and saturate the switch, but I sure as hell did do that with Solaris 10 on a DELL server, of all the shitty hardware out there. Wow, so slow. We had to get special switches specifically because Linux would over saturate way past 40 Gbps. Never had that issue with Slowlaris. > I've also never been able to get Linux to deliver anywhere close to 100 MB/s with NFS, while SmartOS regularly delivered over 433 MB/s, while peaking multiple times at 533 MB/s; that's faster than our EMC SAN was at work! AHAHAHAHA Slowlaris could barely make it through a day without NFS crashing. We were regularly peaking in the 800 MB/s range with Linux, that's faster than Slowlaris crashing on the EMC SAN at work! >So yeah, I'll stick with what doesn't break backwards compatibility and is blazingly fast... Ah, so you'll stick with Linux! Awesome! >Solaris and SmartOS for the win. Winning the dunce award for antiquated OSes, yep. >Good luck with GNU and Linux. You'll need it. Good luck with the OS that runs the fastest super computers in the world, all of HFT, etc.? Yep, we'll need luck to leverage the best platform to push us into the future. Thanks!