Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Annatar 2162 days ago
Solaris regularly beats Linux in performance on the same hardware, and the subsystems which are "slower" aren't really: they just don't lie and trade safety for performance, like Linux does. Linux is fake performance at the cost of correctness of operation.
2 comments
ThA0x2 2152 days ago
Solaris hasn't beaten Linux in performance in the past 5 years in anything.

As a matter of fact, you can't point to a single source that proves your point.

"That which is purported without evidence can be disregarded without evidence."

link
jaekash 2162 days ago
I would like to see some evidence to back this claim.
link
Annatar 2162 days ago
The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one clearly advocating for Linux here.
link
jaekash 2162 days ago
> The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one clearly advocating for Linux here.

Ehh... if you want proof for a specific claim then ask for it. I am asking you for proof of the specific positive claim you made, which is:

> Solaris regularly beats Linux in performance on the same hardware, and the subsystems which are "slower" aren't really: they just don't lie and trade safety for performance, like Linux does. Linux is fake performance at the cost of correctness of operation.

The claims I did make is that in my experience Solaris had to be tuned to be reasonably performant. One example where tuning was needed by default was malloc. The default malloc from Solaris had horrible multi threaded performance . IIRC ZFS also had quite horrible performance by default if not tuned and I recall there were multiple tuning we had to do on new installations specifically relating to mmap to somewhat mitigate the poor integration of ZFS ARC cache and page cache which are documented here: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/225 and https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2016-Jul... there was also a whole wiki on ZFS tuning for various applications including MySQL.

link
Annatar 2161 days ago
The Github issue is for (then) ZFS on Linux, not ZFS on Solaris: whoever can read is at a distinct advantage.

The second link is an opinion from some researcher at Pasteur institute in France.

Both are bogus, but thank you for playing.

link