Albert D. Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > I'll bet they didn't even bother compiling up a
> > kernel... something that is utterly trivial in a FreeBSD system, and
> > if they did they certainly didn't bother tuning it.
> Lots of places would not allow this. Heavy tweaking requires heavy
> documentation to be reproducable by a future admin. It adds cost.
> There is a "don't break anything" concern.
Building a custom kernel on BSD isn't heavy tweaking, it's SOP. If you
follow recommended practices, no documentation is required to make the
results reproduceable on that system. If you have good admin
procedures, then no documentation is required to reproduce the system
on new hardware after the other is destroyed in a fire.
> Go on, admit it. The benchmark was fair to FreeBSD, and you just
> don't like to see the results.
Ok, the bechmark was fair. To complete the trio(*), the Pope is a pagan
and bears hold it until they're out of the woods.
They didn't run all the systems in truly out of the box state, and
didn't say *how* the selected what tuning they did. They didn't
discuss the design goals of the systems, which are different and will
influence the effect of measurements.
This was a puff piece masquerading as a benchmark.
<mike
*) Lies, damned lies and statistics.
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
