Sorry, I missed the "variable file sizes" part.
So forget about my post.
Am 28.05.2013 um 16:27 schrieb dennis berger:
> Hi,
> for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But this
> doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the postmark
> output here.
>
Hi,
for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But this
doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the postmark
output here.
I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence.
Guest and the actual test system is FreeBSD9.1/64bit inside of Virtualbo
Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-)
So, if I have a "desktop" distro like PCBSD, the only thing of relevance is
putting up my own web server (Yes, the benchmark showed PCBSD seriously
kicking butt with Apache on static pages but why would I care on a desktop
OS?)
Personally, I
Phoronix is The Onion of *nix journalism. It's cute, but you'd have to be
crazy to believe it.
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-perf
28.05.2013 10:08, O. Hartmann:
Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests
comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1
It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark
outperform at what?
adrian
On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests
> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS):
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1
>
> It is "impre
Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests
comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1
It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the
gaming performance - this is
