Contributed by dhartmei on from the all-bets-are-on dept.
The twist is that the results will be published later in a second article. So, instead of agreeing or disagreeing with the validity of the test setup based on how favorable the results turn out towards any OS, you'll have to decide whether the comparison is fair (and relevant) in advance.
According to Bourke [...] there were quite a few surprises that I think will challenge a few tightly-held assumptions in regards to which operating systems are fast and which aren't
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (130.238.5.7) on
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
Comments
By Puffy (128.113.201.229) on
So what?
There's nothing here to really brush off as "Oh, you're not taking into account X" or "Dumbass, OpenBSD does Y so therefore it has to be slower". Chalking it up to propolice is a complete copout and pretty ignorant.
There's no fight to pick, and this is a non-story. OpenBSD is middle-of-the-pack for performance. Wow.
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
Perhaps you should work a bit more on your reading skills? I quite simply wondered what thoughts, if any, the author of the benchmarks has concerning ProPolice. Thre is no implied "brush off". Got it?
By Anonymous Coward (208.27.203.127) on
Actually I don't see a need for him to include OpenBSD in the final conclusion. The
commentary before pretty well summed it up.
> If he add the conclusion, I hope he has some thoughts on ProPolice that surely affects
> the benchmarks somewhat.
I doubt ProPolice had anything to do with this. If Theo is right in his belief that all the
security enhancements don't impact more than 2 - 3% of system preformance. Then I
would have expected to see at 47 - 48% improvement over the single CPU benchmark
(we all won't be delusional to think that two CPUs means the machine is twice as fast
*smile*).
Which tends to lead me in one of two directions.
1. There is some barrier to the thread support that is limited it.
2. The kernel locks are not fine enough.
If it was #2, I would expect (based on past experience with Linux MP systems back when
it started with the big lock) again to see some gain. Which leads me to be #1 is the issue.
BTW, #1 could be threading library or could be mysql use of threading under OpenBSD I
don't honestly know which so I won't even guess.
Don't know how much preformance work has been done on OpenBSD's threading library?
I see it as a good area for someone to jump in a play. That is IMSNHO the best thing to do
with articles like these.
- Ben
Comments
By Brad (65.110.162.61) brad at comstyle dot com on
By henning (213.128.133.133) henning on
That's why OpenBSD loses a bit with the 2nd CPU installed; the MP locks cost a bit performance but we gain (nearly) nothing back.
By Anthony (68.145.111.152) on
Second, threading is currently userspace, and it's not possible for two threads in the same process to run concurrently on two different processors. Much of the advantage of threads is the ability to use non-blocking I/O without your brain melting, so that's usually enough. It hurts for some GUI stuff and multi-threaded servers like Apache 2 and apparently databases... but if you really need these things go with another OS or fund an OpenBSD developer to port the fancy implementation from FreeBSD.
Third, there's a number of optimizations that help even on UP systems that OpenBSD doesn't have. See #2 for the solution.
Chances are it doesn't matter (you have a lightly loaded server, or you have a server that does things OpenBSD is fast at) or you already use another OS.
I realize people like to reduce the number of OSes to keep the mental overhead down, and to reduce the workload of testing and applying patches, but you pay a price for that.
Comments
By Ben (24.118.184.77) mouring@nospam.eviladmin.org on
We all know that OpenBSD is missing key features in the area of MP. It took Linux, FreeBSD, BSDi (God rest its' soul), etc years of work to make MP beyond a toy. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor would I expect OpenBSD's SMP/Thread support. =) Tho, that would product some interesting chatter if it was.
I am glad to see my little BP6 dual 533mhz box being put to good use and not crashing under 3.6. If only other OSes liked that poor box as well.
- Ben
By Anonymous Coward (81.64.227.144) on
And letting it activated for mysql compilation reflects the current usage (why to choose OpenBSD and, later, kill one of his great security feature on a sensible networked daemon ?), so this shows the cost of our security needs, that's all.
And btw, the benchmarked gentoo is also propoliced.
By Bruno Rohée (62.4.19.202) bruno@rohee.com on
First thing this is quite a well done benchmark.
The author just ignore some details about OpenBSD. Its thread implementation is entirely in userland and all threads are inside the same process so benchmarking a single application on a two way machine was just losing time, there can't be any win in performance for a single process under OpenBSD for now, threaded application or not. The slight performance lowering on the MP machine was to be expected given the overhead introduced by the MP kernel.
However the sentence "The results would seem to indicate that it might be wise to run a uniprocessor kernel even if two processors are available." that he applies to NetBSD and given the quite comparable results would also apply to OpenBSD is misguided. The mysql process sure don't benefit of it but all other processes on the machine would use the CPU that isn't hogged by the DB. So if it is not a purely dedicated DB server that conclusion is wrong. You could even benefit from MP under OpenBSD running mysql, just run different DB under different processes (and store them on different disks, to avoid trashing...).
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (143.166.255.18) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (143.166.255.18) on
By spinaltoad (24.0.202.65) todd@qdsdirect.com on
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.44) on
In the end, two slighte slower and secure boxes are a lot cheaper than one 1337 über speed-tweaked box which gets rooted. I like my data.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Luiz Gustavo (200.165.130.203) on http://hades.uint8t.org
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (64.119.174.202) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on
Comments
By Nate (70.24.120.242) on
By Anonymous Coward (67.34.129.203) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.34.129.203) on
And indeed, I do compile it myself. Even when I was using Debian I would compile it myself, because Debian's versions were alway lagging behind a lot. For some softwares this isn't a big deal, but I never liked the idea of missing out on important bug fixes and new features that offer more power or make maintenance easier (eg, auto-vacuum, replication, etc.)
As to why OBSD is easier to maintain? Well that's simple. It installs itself with sane defaults, chroot'ed daemons and priviledge separation active. When I was using Linux, I'd have to go patch the kernel with GrSecurity/lm_sensors/etc., configure the kernel (which ain't that fun IMO, especially w/ grsec patch), build a kernel package for every server, and do that again every time a new kernel bug came out, which happens comparatively often in penguin-land. I'd also have to track GrSecurity's website to stay abreast of changes there. Also, I had to put a lot of time and work into securing the box the way I wanted it. I'd had to edit init scripts and create chroot directory structures for named, etc. because Debian refuses to give sane default settings like OBSD. I also ended up writting a Perl script that went through the whole filesystem and removed the s-bit on any binaries that didn't need it, because there were so many of those. And I had to keep track of all this in the dpkg DB, so it didn't
overwrite my changes...
I also like how fast OBSD gets installed. It's quick and to the point, and there's really very little one has to do to get a fully-functional server. Even though the OS is pretty small, the fact it already includes Apache and BIND (with sane defaults) is a big time-saver for me. Same thing with disk quotas (no quota package to install, no kernel to config... just edit the fstab and rc.conf, and presto!)
And I also like the siteXX.tgz custom install option. I haven't used it yet, but probably will for one of my projects. To have the OS automatically take care of your custom stuff at install time for you is pure genius!
As for keeping stuff up-to-date, I don't have a problem with CVS and running "make && make install" in the right directory. I don't see that as any worse than "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade". Of course, the OBSD patches are comparatively fewer (I was constantly getting bombareded every other day with messages from debian-security-announced telling me to update such and such package), so in the end I also gained here too.
By Daniel (213.6.120.100) on
In most cases, it's a matter of minutes to bring a port in -stable up to date wrt the most recent version of the software (Perhaps not mysql, but done it for PostgreSQL). The ports/packages system is clean and lightweight, well documented and the fake install and systraced builds protect you from severe mistakes.
I don't want to say Debian's or Redhat's package systems are bad, but if .rpms/.debs are faulty or not available, my personal impression is, that it's much harder to fix/create them yourself than it is to create a OpenBSD pkg yourself.
By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on
Comments
By Luiz Gustavo (200.165.130.203) on http://hades.uint8t.org
From my point-of-view that's what security is all about.
By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on
Very interesting.
Comments
By gwyllion (134.58.253.113) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.208.100.201) on
And I personally prefer useful stuff over initial stuff anyway... which is how a wiki works (by "standing on the shoulders of giants").
</offtopic>