Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3349 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Suse vs RH
  • From: Lenz Grimmer <lenz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:19:58 +0200
  • Message-id: <4284470E.9060608@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hash: SHA1


Matthew Stringer wrote:

> I posted on here last month that a client of mine wished to benchmark Suse
> 9.1/SEL9 Vs Red Hat ES4.

Finally! I was waiting for somebody to do such a comparison. Will you be
able to publish the results and the methology you used?

> We ran 6 identical 64 bit machines load ballenced running a high volume
> website with Apache and Informix.
> The Suse boxes outstripped the Red Hat ones by 2-1; the response time is
> almost twice as quick and the CPU/MEM usage is much lower.

Good to hear :)

> Both boxes were exactly the same spec running linux built with the same
> packages and configs.

That should be a given, if you want to do a fair comparison. Did you do
any kernel tweaking? Or did you try to keep them as "out-of-the-box" as

> I would have thought that they would have been almost exactly the same. Can
> anyone explain why there would be such a difference?
> I've always waved the Suse flag but this is ridiculous!

Both SUSE and Red Hat apply quite a number of patches to the Linux
Kernel - none of them can really be considered a "vanilla" kernel. Take
a look at the patches that are included in the Kernel source RPMs. It
seems like SUSE did a better job of enhancing the Kernel. One assumption
would be that they have made changes to the VM and scheduling. After
all, Andrea Arcangeli, who is one of the kernel VM hackers, works for

I have always assumed that the SUSE kernel would outperform the one used
by Red Hat. I would love to see some facts that actually proof this.

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenz Grimmer <lenz@xxxxxxxxxxx> -o)
[ICQ: 160767607 | Jabber: LenZGr@xxxxxxxxxx] /\\ V_V
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups