Solaris vs. Linux Performance

by on October 27, 2006 · 7 comments· LAST UPDATED October 27, 2006

in , ,

Geekpatrol has published Solaris vs. Linux Performance on Sun Ultra 20 M2.

From the article:
On Monday I posted Geekbench results for my Sun Ultra 20 M2 running Solaris and Windows. Afterwards, I received a number of requests asking how Linux performed on the same hardware.

Now that I've finally managed to download Fedora Core 6 (arguably the "cofficial" Linux of Geek Patrol), here are the Geekbench results for Fedora Core 6 (and Solaris, as a comparison) on a Sun Ultra 20 M2.

Read more at Geekpatrol

I think author(s) could use CentOS or demo version of RHEL/Suse Linux. This may have given us even more accurate picture.

[Found via OsNews]

TwitterFacebookGoogle+PDF versionFound an error/typo on this page? Help us!

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Jeff Schroeder October 28, 2006 at 6:05 am

Fedora uses a Mandatory Access Control system by default called SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux). Solaris has the Trusted Extensions (for mandatory access control) and does not enable they by default. The SELinux overhead is roughly 5-8% depending on the system role.

Running these benchmarks again with SELinux disabled would be more interesting.

Reply

2 nixCraft October 28, 2006 at 6:27 pm

Jeff,

I must agree with you. Another thing is kernel is not optimized.

Appreciate your post.

Reply

3 Steve October 31, 2006 at 11:19 am

I believe there are so many aspects that can be tested that just testing for these things wouldn’t have been accurate enough to say Solaris is better than Linux. One of the comments stated that the benchmarks were more CPU and compiler intensive than testing the actual performance of the OS such as network transfer rates and harddrive speeds, etc. I don’t believe that this would show anything “useful” as there are just too many millions of lines of code to consider one better than the other.

My two cents ;)

Reply

4 James Cornell December 20, 2006 at 5:15 am

On multi-core and multi-socket machines, Solaris will always have the upper hand. Sun has put tons of effort into their LWP threading model. (M:N I believe) Since Sun through the 90′s was mainly a high performance hardware provider in addition to a UNIX vendor, their commercial compilers which are now free to use are more optimized, especially on Opteron and SPARC processors. The threading has been tested all the way up to 100 cpus on a single machine, while glibc and the Linux kernel, are not very efficient on large cpu installations in comparison. It boils down to the fact Sun focuses on high performance computing, while the main function of the Linux kernel is to fit general needs and have support for everything. From personal experience, a Solaris 10 06/06 system even on a uniprocessor Pentium 4 could serve out Apache requests faster, as Solaris does have a new network stack. The NFS implementation is more rich, and Solaris 11/06 has TrustedSolaris extensions which add manditory access control and secure network profiles which save you time from disabling services and what not. A lot of people might be content with Linux, but if you doubt what I’m saying, try it on a Pentium 4, Core Duo, AMD64, or SPARC system, then try alternates, it does the job pretty well, and in some areas does both performance and functionality better, such as Java performance and full NFSv4 with ACLs. NFS throughput in Solaris 9 could not compare to Linux, now it does, and UFS seems to have the same performance as any common file system you would use on Linux or a modern UNIX varient, such as SGI XFS, jfs, ffs2 (UFS2/BSD FFS) or ext3.

Reply

5 nixCraft December 20, 2006 at 12:26 pm

James,

Excellent commentary

Appreciate your post.

Reply

6 Munendra August 10, 2009 at 5:10 pm

As per my experience solaris is very good on SUN but not on others , package manager of opensolaris working so slow as compare to Linux.

Reply

7 dE December 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

RHEL, centOS etc.. etc.. etc… are bullshit.

Get some real Linux distos like Gentoo and Debian.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: