Re: Linux or FreeBSD a better choice for threads/tasking?

[Matthias Kretschmer <McCratch@gmx.net>]

Matthias Kretschmer schrieb:

> Dima Volodin wrote:
>
> > David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > > Dima Volodin wrote:
> > >
> > > > >         In my experience, multithreaded programs running agressively on FreeBSD
> > > > > inevitably crash. The Linux threading model is much stabler. I've tried
> > > > > both FreeBSD's libc_r and the port of LinuxThreads.
> > >
> > > > What does it mean "running aggressively"? I have a multithreaded program
> > > > that runs on a 3.5-STABLE FreeBSD box for weeks at a time without
> > > > crashing at all. Am I not aggressive enough?
> > >
> > >         By "running agressively" I mean performing a large number of tasks,
> > > stressing all aspects of the system (especially vm and networking), on
> > > an SMP machine.
> >
> > Could you throw in some numbers here, please?
> >
>
> I had never problems with FreeBSD 3.4 and 4.1-stable running on my dual PII box -
> performed very well, even with a large load, which bloated my linux-2.2 - linux-2.4 is
> much better, but the SMP code of freebsd 4-branch is definatevly faster than linux-2.4 in
> my experience around 5% - so you have to benchmark a lot to see the differences :-) - My
> box never hung with high load nor with low ... And I had it running for some time now ...
>

forgot to say: do not use FreeBSD if you need gnat and wants to compile it out of the
ports-collection - this is true for the binary package lying on ftp.freebsd.org at the
beginning of this year ... - the gnat doesn't use native thread implementation, but instead
simulates threads and uses non-preemptive threads instead. 1. It doesn't support SMP
environments. 2. Non-preemptive sucks :-) - I myself switched OS, because I was too lazy to
get gnat properly working, if someone has some patches/binaries, please mail me.

>
> >
> > >         DS
> >
> > Dima