Hmm... No sure what happened there again. What I sent (pulled from my
"Sent" folder...
===
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
Phoronix.com <http://Phoronix.com>, Michael invariable leaves it in the
default configuration 'in the way the developers or vendor wanted it for
production'. This is by rule.
However, invariable the community or vendor for platforms that post poor
scores on benchmark cry foul about using the default config. 'it should
be tuned, no-one deploys an untuned system' or 'the system is configured
for a different workload'.
The response from us to this comes in two forms.
1) If it is the wrong workload for the platform, do a public post
explaining and analysing the results. Highlighting the rationale for
the concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with
barriers suffer in some write benchmarks for the sake of filesystem
integrity.
2) If tuning can have a material impact on the results, post a tuning
guide with step by step and rationale. Ie: educate the community and users.
Michael and I have had many discussions with vendors and communities on
this. In almost all cases, the vendor has either changed the default
configuration or accepted the results as valid.
As a service to the community or vendor that publishes the tuning guide,
Michael is more than willing to redo a tuned vs untuned comparison. To
date, the communities have never taken us up on that offer. In part,
this affects Phoronix.com <http://Phoronix.com>'s perception in the
public, but that is more of a result of a one sided discussion by a
party external to a particular community (with a healthy touch of
journalisticly pumped compare & contrast). For the FreeBSD community,
who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs public
comparisons of FreeBSD against anything?
Matthew
===
On 01/04/2012 03:49 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800
<matt...@phoronix.com> wrote:
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking
on [1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva configuration 'in the way the
developers or production'. This is by rule. However, i poor
scores on be 'it should be tuned, is configured for a diffe The
response from us to this comes in two forms.&nb 1) If it is the
wrong workload for the platform, do a public pos explaining and
analysing the results. Highlighting the rationale fo r the
concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with
ba filesystem integrity 2) If tuning can have a material impact
on the results, post a t uning guide with step by step and
rationale. Ie: educate the communit Michael and I have had many
discussions with vendors an on this. In almost all cases, the
vendor has either cha default configuration or accepted the results
as valid. As guide, Micha comparison. To dat offer. In part,
thi public, but that is more of a result of a one sided d party
external to a particular community (with a healthy tou
journalisticly pumped compare& contrast). For the FreeBSD
community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs
public c Matthew
Not really related to the discussion on hand, but the above about the
most unreadable email I am yet to read on the public mailing list.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
