Has anyone tried these tests with 4.x? Well, i did, and i was surprised
how good the performance is, it gave me the highest number of all tests,
even compared to much faster HW. Although this is all different
hardware, it seems like the performance drops the higher the version of
FreeBSD is, speci
On 12/21/06 19:35, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable,
On 22/12/06, David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect in such a test, memory copying speed will be a key factor,
I don't have number to back up my idea, but I think Linux has lots
of tweaks, such as using MMX instruction to copy data.
I had the oppertunity to study the AMD Athlon XP Optim
David Xu wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using
two (almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the
other running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I
initially started a thread of the same name on -stable, bu
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable, but it was suggeste
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable, but it was suggested I
submit a mail her
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Anyway on to the results: I used the attached program to read a cached
Silly bug in attached program : lseek failure test has 1 instead of -1
(finger trouble).
*** readtest.c.orig Fri Dec 22 14:43:42 2006
--- readtest.c Fri Dec 22 14:43:24 2006
***
*** 103,109
