View Full Version : Best multiprocessor OS
[XC] moddolicous
02-12-2005, 06:53 PM
I have always wondered what was better for a dual CPU setup. Since alot of people here have probably have one, what would you choose?
smokey
02-12-2005, 07:40 PM
Missing Option: *BSD/Solaris...
This seems to be a common 'sickness' (if you will) around here. I see these fora as being a place for support of higher performance, Solaris is indeed designed specifically for clustering, and the BSDs are always talking about how well they scale. Why not include them? (I voted for Linux, anyway :p: )
boshi
02-12-2005, 08:39 PM
Macs are probably the most common SMP desktops.
kryptobs2000
02-12-2005, 09:37 PM
don't see why windows is even up there :rolleyes:
STEvil
02-12-2005, 11:29 PM
because people want what they are familiar with.
sllywhtboy
02-13-2005, 12:14 AM
where's netware? where's aix? :D
--slly
redgoo
02-13-2005, 12:20 AM
Actually, BSD performance (at least FreeBSD) in SMP isn't that great. 5.x was a big improvement over 4.x, but it still has a ways to go to catch up to Linux.
I voted for *nix because it beats the other options by far, but it still wouldn't be my primary choice if there were other options.
---dens
masterofpuppets
02-14-2005, 01:47 AM
A untuned install of Linux and BSD: Linux wins.
A tweaked up install of Linux and BSD: BSD wins.
That's one more reason why BSD should never be recommended for noobs to Unix.
Anyway, I would say Linux simply because you don't have to do much tweaking to get extra performance.
redgoo
02-16-2005, 12:59 AM
What tweaks do you do to BSD to get it to run as good as Linux in SMP?
markiemrboo
03-14-2005, 04:38 AM
4.x scales well up to 4 CPU's, apparently. As for 5.x, dunno. Don't use it, too unstable for me :)
Dragonfly looks like a promising replacement for people who don't much like 5.x :)
masterofpuppets
03-16-2005, 09:30 AM
FreeBSD 5.3 seems stable enough to me.
winterburnd
03-17-2005, 05:53 PM
FreeBSD 5.3 seems stable enough to me.
I defy anyone to make Linux lock up. :cool:
smokey
03-17-2005, 09:24 PM
Apparently, you have never experienced a kernel panic. You'll learn eventually, I suppose... *sigh*
masterofpuppets
03-20-2005, 09:05 AM
I've had the old kernel panic several times. Most frequently when I install to SATA devices under kernel 2.4 (which thinks they are IDE), then upgrade to a 2.6 (which thinks they are SCSI disks, but the configuration thinks otherwise) and it can't mount the root filesystem. That situation used to happen alot, got me really worked up.
evilentity
04-13-2005, 01:39 PM
I defy anyone to make Linux lock up. :cool:
With stable, compatible hardware its very very difficult, and I've gotten better stable overclocks with linux than with windows, but it still will hang when you push it hard, or use hardware that's incompatible/barely compatible.
Voted linux but I'd prefer some other Unix flavour like Sun Solaris, for example, because they've been manufacturing multiprocessor hardware and developing their OS for a very long time and I am sure they know the business.
Illicit Tweakin
05-03-2005, 06:30 PM
I voted Linux only because BEOS wasn't listed. Just kidding
But really I would probably say Solaris like the others.
It would sort of depend on what the system would be doing.
Server 2003 wouldn't be that bad in some situations.
It really is to bad about BEOS though I miss that OS.