On 23.12.11 16:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
I thought that the "D" in FreeBSD stands for "distribution". Yes, it's
ok that it compiles with LLVM. Does it also run faster in benchmarks?
It does. From a language perspective. It is a "distribution", because at
the times BSD was developed, it wa
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still
stuck with this problem and more and more peo
On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
without any further optimizations.
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corr
On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
care-taking engineer taking care in a more user fri
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
[…]
> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>
> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and
> SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>
>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>
> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
>
