I wonder what are the performance difference now between OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
OpenBSD fares far worse in performance than Linux and its BSD cousins because they actively avoid supporting CPU, memory, and other features that increase performance via some shared resource because these are often vectors for information leakage and attack.
Everyone else has taken the approach of utilizing these features and getting the performance, but mitigating attacks (or class of attacks) as they are are discovered. Which is not a worse approach per se, especially if your project places a higher value on raw performance (or performance per dollar spent) and you can strengthen security at other layers.
Which means most pre compiled software targets CPU’s from 10+ years ago.
ClearLinux compiles for current chips, which gains the benefit of new instruction sets.
Clear Linux OS defines its minimum hardware requirements to be second-generation Intel® microarchitecture code name Westmere (released in 2010) or later.
source: https://www.clearlinux.org/clear-linux-documentation/guides/...
it doesn't make sense for zstd to be performing orders of magnitude slower on some OSs, because the bottleneck (at least at higher compression levels) is pure userspace code. as I recall, someone on the freebsd mailing list found that the actual speed is almost identical, but zstd used a totally wrong timing API on freebsd. phoronix also uses totally different zstd versions and only sets the compression level the same, ignoring that the achieved compression ratio may vary greatly between versions for some special data.
considering these basic errors, the whole benchmark should be considered garbage in garbage out and not useful for any real purpose.