Subject: Re: Performance comparisons
To: Mirian Crzig Lennox <email@example.com>
From: Tyler Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/12/2000 18:14:02
On 12 Jul 2000, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.email@example.com>,
> Brian Gregor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >A quickie summary of how NetBSD did:
> > Filesystem tests - On par with the other two BSD's,
> > faster than Linux, Solaris.
> The filesystems benchmarks don't specify which performance numbers
> relate to which filesystem. Specifically, was linux/ext2fs run against
> NetBSD/ext2fs or NetBSD/ffs? Comparing ext2fs numbers to ffs numbers
> may not be entirely fair.
It should be done each way. For example, ffs is the filesystem that
NetBSD uses by default and ext2fs is the filesystem that Linux uses as
default. So the default filesystem should be compared, as well as the
comparison as to how well it handles other filesystems.
> I'm ecstatic that NetBSD did as well as it did, but curious about the
I would like to try doing one of these tests one time, as I have access to
most of the operating systems that these testers used.