Matt,
Meaning? How does -O0 optimization and INVARIANTS affect this?
Personally, I find everything on Phoronix "out-of-the-box" FreeBSD and
optimized Linux. *shrug* Apples? Meet Oranges. I make my money as a
contractor supporting RH/CentOS, but it's always funny to give people the heads
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
I'm not a 'fan boy' , I'm somebody who respects the mindset of the
'best tech to solve the problem'.
From: Bill Totman
To: davide.dam...@contactlab.com
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:11 AM
Subj
Hi,
There are several things about this that are highly suspect.
First, wipe out the hardware RAID. The processor doing RAID computation is,
probably, MUCH slower than a core on the CPU. Even if it's RAID-1 (Simple
Mirror) this RAID card is performing tasks that is does not need to do
inc
Hi,
Well, I don't chime in, usually. However, enough is enough. There are many
merits to both *BSD and Linux. I don't agree with benchmarks that slant either
way, as I'm sure people in both camps will agree. Please be adult and just
agree to disagree. Technology applicable to the problem a
I'm sorry. I didn't run it. I should have but a journal was required. I
could
have used FFS w GEOM Journal but I was winging this in my free time while
performing my "job". (Bored easily, and easily interested when something just
"feels" wrong) So, I went with ZFS due to the gobs of memory
cox
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 9:40:15 AM
Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
On 7 January 2011 09:12, Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning.
>
of the box. All SMP and all 64 bit OS.
Paul Pathiakis
Systems Architect/Sr Admin/Geek
All around nice guy.
From: Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz>
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 6:41:07 AM
Subject: Phoronix comparision of
Hi,
going to chime in on this onejust trying to help.
There's some simple things to get Gb, jumbo frames (MTU > 1500 on both the
switch port and the card) is a simple way.
However, I'd have to read back on this thread as I haven't had time of late.
Basically, and I've seen this on many, m
e on one thi week or weekend).
>
> However, tasks that use multiple cores and have threads on cores
> communicate a lot see both AMD architectures close the gap.
>
> Paul Pathiakis wrote on Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:17:40AM -0400:
> > Be very, very careful in purchasing Core 2 D
Be very, very careful in purchasing Core 2 Duo. There are major
problems with the chip that have been documented across the board.
Many, many people are steering clear of the chip for at least a year.
This brings up a simple thought... is it better to stick with a tried
and true chip at pre
>
> What makes PostgreSQL more interesting? Because you use it perhaps?
> I would hesitate a guess that Mysql is a very common workload
> under FreeBSD likely more so than PostgreSQL and as such that
> would be a very good reason for it to have particular interest
> and hence focus as a good start
Thank you, Robert.
P.
On Monday 26 February 2007 15:52, Robert Watson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> After on-and-off development since 2005, I've now merged the UNIX domain
> socket locking patch. Special thanks to Kris Kennaway who has been
> providing stability testing, performance testing, and gener
13 matches
Mail list logo
