Any version is fine that's PTS 3.0 or newer in terms of being
compatible, since the test profiles are versioned separately and
automatically fetched to match the result file. However, I'd recommended
the newest (PTS 3.6) as it contains the best FreeBSD support at present
in terms of hardware/so
The benchmarks themselves are versioned. So in general most of the
av= ailable versions of PTS itself should be fine. PTS can be
considered = an execution shell that doesn't affect the benchmark
itself.
Note th= at you'll download a pile of the benchmarks, build and
install the
Is there a specific version of the test suite that should be used, to
compare against the published results?
Adrian
On 20 December 2011 17:18, Matthew Tippett wrote:
> For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
> reproduce the benchmarks in question.
>
> Install PTS
For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in question.
Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
Run the benchmark against those used in the article
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
You will be
On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>>>
>>> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on Fr
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> > http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
> >
> > PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
> > and Solaris. Ste
Bottom post this time to follow Oliver :).
On 12/20/2011 02:54 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
and S
On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>
> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
> and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
>
> Sam
>
> On Tue, Dec 20
http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
Sam
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Interestingly,
On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world performance, equally,
Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
numbers in relation to, for
Hi,
I'm not sure i trust allbsd.org, such as their site has last updated at
2005.
Sami
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM, O. Hartmann <
ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 12/20/11 10:01, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow
> wrote:
> >> Fr
On 12/20/11 10:01, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow
> wrote:
>> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
>> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
>> found recently (my shame of cou
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Release engineering for FreeBSD produces SHA256 checksums for all
> official releases. AFAIK though they're only in the announcement emails and
> not stored anywhere else.
> I can't speak for OpenBSD's release process.
> Tha
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
> from.
Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the correct
checksum
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
> found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is service (
> pub.allbs
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:22:40 +0200
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 19/12/2011 17:50 Nathan Whitehorn said the following:
> > The thing I've seen is that ULE is substantially more enthusiastic about
> > migrating processes between cores than 4BSD.
>
> Hmm, this seems to be contrary to my theoretical exp
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
>> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
>> from.
>
> Check
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow
> wrote:
>> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
>> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
>> found recently (my s
19 matches
Mail list logo
