Tim Traver wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 01:32:57PM -0700:
>
> For simplicity, I used a port called ubench (the latest version 0.3,
> which I know is quite old) to get the following numbers :
ubench is just another useless artificial benchmark with no base in
reality. I forgot the specifics bu
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Tim Traver wrote:
And here is the run of the ubench.5.4 binary:
FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 139,623 - MEM - 207,180
And a rerun of the FreeBSD 7.0 ubench making sure there is absolutely
no activity on the box
FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 200,562 - MEM - 107,695
That run is a little better th
Tim Traver wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Robert,
ok, I looked and it looks like the port compiles statically, and I was
able to grab the binary from the old disk and move it over to the new
one...
here is info now on how it is linked :
[root ~]# ldd ubench.5.4
ubench.5.4:
libm.so.3 => /
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
>>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> ok, I looked and it looks like the port compiles statically, and I was
>> able to grab the binary from the old disk and move it over to the new
>> one...
>>
>> here is info now on how it is linked :
>>
>> [root ~]# ldd ubench.5.4
>> ubench.5.4:
>>
Tim Traver wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote:
I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before
doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts
that I wo
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote:
>
>> I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
>> versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before
>> doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts
>> that I would
Tim Traver wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Tim Traver wrote:
Is there anything that I can do on this latest 7.0 box that might be
useful information???
Someone will need to repeat this under controlled conditions. It's
quite a surprising result.
Kris
Kris,
If you can outline a procedure for
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Tim Traver wrote:
>
>> Is there anything that I can do on this latest 7.0 box that might be
>> useful information???
>
> Someone will need to repeat this under controlled conditions. It's
> quite a surprising result.
>
> Kris
Kris,
If you can outline a procedure for me, I
Tim Traver wrote:
Is there anything that I can do on this latest 7.0 box that might be
useful information???
Someone will need to repeat this under controlled conditions. It's
quite a surprising result.
Kris
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org ma
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote:
I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before
doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts
that I would run would f
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hey Tim, please try a later version of FreeBSD 7, there's been
many improvements in the malloc(3) code since 7.0 so these
results aren't very meaningful.
Can you let us know what you see with 7-stable?
thanks,
-Alfred
Alfred,
Thanks for responding, but I was using
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote:
I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before doing
this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts that I would
run would fare between the two vers
Hey Tim, please try a later version of FreeBSD 7, there's been
many improvements in the malloc(3) code since 7.0 so these
results aren't very meaningful.
Can you let us know what you see with 7-stable?
thanks,
-Alfred
* Tim Traver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080812 14:39] wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have
Hi All,
I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before
doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts that
I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results are
somew
14 matches
Mail list logo
