On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > With Uniprocessor things are a lot more equal. > but we still suck on netbench. > > This is due to the exact form of netbench which is exactly nonoptimal for > FreeBSD.
I'm not interested in benchmarks. I'm interested in real-world performance and real-world operational work done over units of time. > Also becaosue of the GKL (Giant Kernel Lock) (see Solaris's results) I know about the SMP issues. But in many applications going to SMP is actually a reliability AND throughput lose (web servers is one example). You're better off with 4 machines than 1 big 4-way machine. > So don't assume that NT figures must be bad.. > we have too many weaknesses in our own code to throw stones. > > It'd be intersting to see how FreeBSD 1.1.5 would have performed on the > same tests. Sometimes we've gained in general performance but lost in > some specific cases. Anyone can tune a kernel or OS for benchmarks. I'm a lot more interested in how it all works in the real world since you don't run benchmarks when you're trying to get real work done. -- -- Karl Denninger (k...@denninger.net) Web: fathers.denninger.net I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
