On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
>> ensure expected behaviour.
>>
> Why should you have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
[1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva= riable leaves it in the default
configuration 'in the way the developers or= vendor wanted it for
production'. This is by rule.
However, i= nvariable the community or vendor for platfor
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
> ensure expected behaviour.
>
Why should you have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle Server
install ? If not, you should not have to tune the FreeBSD i
On 2011-Dec-24 15:49:00 +0100, "O. Hartmann"
wrote:
>On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>> Here is now it works:
>>
>> If you see an problem and have a solution: go fix it. Many will be
>> grateful.
>> If you can't fix it, but have an idea how to fix it, share it. May will
>> be grateful.
On 23 Dec 2011 12:25, "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 an
Am 12/28/11 15:24, schrieb Alexander Leidinger:
>
> Hi,
>
> you assume in your comment that development time "wasted" in the
> linuxulator is time lost for other development. This assumption could be
> valid for a commercially developed OS, but is wrong for FreeBSD. I tell
> this as a person who
.
Hartmann ; dan...@freebsd.org
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> 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
On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is
>> currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the idea being
>> to
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
On 12/23/11 16:24, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > while the discussion con
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
I have slightly reordered your email in my reply, in order to put the
most important item last.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:01:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> I'm still with the system, although I desperately need scientific grade
> compilers or GPGPU support.
Your use-case, while valid, is clear
On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
> schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
>
>> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
>> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
>> tested at that time.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other
place. Now... in case someon
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
> tested at that time.
Hi Daniel,
obviously performance is not a quality aspect, only stabil
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:05:38 +0100
"O. Hartmann" wrote:
> Yes, and it is legitime to question that and bring pro and contra for
> that decission. But since "FreeBSD" is obviously a small club of
> people sitting like a duck on eggs (and, by the way, not their own
> genuine invented eggs, more or
On Fri Dec 23 11, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> 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
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 12/23/11 10:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> 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
On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
> schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
>
>> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
>> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
>> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real
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
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is
> excused by a faulty becnhmarkin
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some oth
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
>>> Now... in case someone here is will
On 12/22/11 17:56, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Guys, girls, fuzzy creatures,
>
> This is by far the best example of a constructive email in this entire thread.
Agreed!
>
> If people would like to help, Erik here is exactly the kind of person
> with exactly the kind of software that needs a hand.
>
>
On 12/22/11 10:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
[...]
>> Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure how
>> different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several
>> measurable metrics, that you will use to later
On 12/22/11 10:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> Stefan Esser schreef:
>> Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
>>> Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
>>> 4.7 then the results are unlikel
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
> > Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel
> > free to go to h
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
> Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free
> to go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
> imp
(Resending - hopefully without horrific escaping somewhere upstream).
Let me suggest an alternative.
Within the Phoronix Test Suite ecosystem, we have a continious
integration/validation system called Phoromatic
(http://www.phoromatic.com/). We have a brief theory of operation on it
captured
Let me suggest an alternative.
=
Within the Phoronix Test Suite ecosystem, we have a
continious
= integration/validation system called Phoromatic
([1]http://www.phoromatic.c= om/). We have a brief theory of
operation
on it captured
=
[2]https://docs.google.
Guys, girls, fuzzy creatures,
This is by far the best example of a constructive email in this entire thread.
If people would like to help, Erik here is exactly the kind of person
with exactly the kind of software that needs a hand.
I think enough philosophizing has been done - now we have questi
Den 21/12/2011 kl. 19.48 skrev Alexander Leidinger:
> And related to the subject: wasn't it you who developed the automatic
> benchmarking stuff? If yes, why not make it available? If you don't have he
> resources, I offer my help to make it available somewhere.
Yes, that's me. I'm mostly out o
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free to
go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additio
Hi,
I suggest to add the content to the wiki, improve it (together with other
people) and then to fix the man-page with the result.
If you want write access to the wiki just register with FirstnameLastname and
tell me or any other FreeBSD comitter with wiki access about it so that we can
han
Hi,
feel free to add an entry to the ideas list in the wiki, it is prominently
linked in the top current links section. If you don't have access and don't
want to register, just provide a nice text in the style of the ideas page and
someone can add it.
And related to the subject: wasn't it you
On 21/12/2011 16:45, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 21/12/2011 15:29, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>> Den 21/12/2011 kl. 15.20 skrev Randy Schultz:
>>
>>> I agree whole-heartedly. I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to say
>>> most
>>> SA's never tune, only that from watching other SA's over the yea
On 21/12/2011 15:29, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 21/12/2011 kl. 15.20 skrev Randy Schultz:
>
>> I agree whole-heartedly. I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to say
>> most
>> SA's never tune, only that from watching other SA's over the years, little
>> tuning is done.
> As a casual SA, I o
Den 21/12/2011 kl. 15.20 skrev Randy Schultz:
> I agree whole-heartedly. I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to say most
> SA's never tune, only that from watching other SA's over the years, little
> tuning is done.
As a casual SA, I often find I'm fumbling around in the dark to find out i
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tom Evans spaketh thusly:
-}
-}I think that a good SA will at least consider how drives are arranged.
-}We don't just slap ZFS on a single disk and expect magic to happen, we
-}consider how write heavy a system will be and consider a dedicated
-}ZIL, we consider what proportio
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Randy Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Matthew Tippett spaketh thusly:
>
> -}There are still possible issues with those benchmarks. The Xeon has known
> -}problems scaling from 6 to 12 cores (well enabling the hyperthreading), so
> you
> -}may find that some
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Matthew Tippett spaketh thusly:
-}There are still possible issues with those benchmarks. The Xeon has known
-}problems scaling from 6 to 12 cores (well enabling the hyperthreading), so you
-}may find that some platforms are penalized in performance if HT is turned on.
-}See t
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:29:25PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> This also interested me:
>
> * Linux system crashed
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg8.html
>
> * OpenIndiana system crashed same way as Linux system
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchiv
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 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
My personal thoughts on all of the complaints that FreeBSD isn't fast
enough and the Phoronix benchmarks aren't representative of true
FreeBSD performance.
Disclaimer: I don't know if the Phoronix benchmarks do tuning out of
the box or not on Linux, so if they do, please correct me Matthew.
The u
[removed freebsd-current and freebsd-stable]
On 19/12/2011 13:16, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
For example, few checkboxes with common sysctl tuning would be perfect,
even if they would be marked as "Experimental", or not recommended.
I'm thinking it's better way to make something in one place (lik
IMHO, no offence, as always.
As were told, Phoronix used "default" setup, not tuned.
So? Is average user will tune it after setup? No, he'll get same defaults,
and would expect same performance as in tests, and he probably get it.
The problem of FreeBSD is not it's default settings, some kind of v
On 12/19/11 13:21, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, "Samuel J. Greear" wrote:
>
>> 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
>>> Hello, Samuel.
>>> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>>>
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _AL
On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, "Samuel J. Greear" wrote:
> 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
>> Hello, Samuel.
>> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>>
>>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>>
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:21:35 +0100
Andreas Nilsson wrote:
[skipped]
guys, sorry, but... can you choose just _one_ ML and spam it ?
performance@, for example.
p.s. does anyone trust results from Phoronix, except completely
idiots?
--
wbr, tiger
___
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
> Hello, Samuel.
> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>
>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating
On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Samuel.
> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>
>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer furt
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 16 декабря 2011 г., 20:43:27:
> Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
> sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we lost that
> battle. :)
My thoughts exactly.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
___
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this
> garbage. (Yes, I have been do
Thanks.
My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs = the
benchmark to ensure expected behaviour.
The installation, execut= ion and comparison against the benchmarks in
the article is fairly simple.<= br>
Note that some tuning may not be relevant or recommended (i
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
>> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
>> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>>
15.12.2011 15:48, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'm getting to the point where I'm considering formulating a private
mail to Jeff Roberson, requesting that he be aware of the discussion
that's happening (not that he necessarily follow or read it), and that
based on what I can tell we're at a roadblock -
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 12/15/2011 08:26 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, 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
u
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:32:47AM -0700, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> > Well, the only way it's going to get fixed is if someone sits down,
> > replicates it, and starts to document exactly what it is that these
> > benchmarks are/aren't doing.
> >
>
> I think you will find that investigation is lar
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
journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is mo
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, 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
journaling enabled) s
Hi, all,
Am 15.12.2011 um 12:18 schrieb Michael Ross:
> Following Steven Hartlands' suggestion,
> from one of my machines:
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#sysctl -a | egrep "hw.vendor|hw.product"
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#dmidecode -t 2
> # dmidecode 2.11
> SMBIOS 2.6 present.
>
> H
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same
Am 16.12.2011 08:06, schrieb O. Hartmann:
> For the underlying OS, as far as I know, the compiler hasn't as much
> impact as on userland software since autovectorization and other neat
> things are not used during system build.
>
> From my experience using gcc 4.2 or 4.4/4.5 does not have an impac
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
>
> Well, the only way it's going to get fixed is if someone sits down,
> replicates it, and starts to document exactly what it is that these
> benchmarks are/aren't doing.
>
I think you will find that investigation is largely a waste of time,
because not only are some of these benchmarks just downr
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:55:16AM -0600, Michael Larabel wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
> >Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
> >:
> >
> >>On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
> >
> >>>Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
> >>>A
Am 15.12.2011, 11:55 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems,
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
The pictur
Can someone please write up a nice, concise blog post somewhere
outlining all of this?
Extra bonus points if it's a blog that is picked up by
blogs.freebsdish.org and/or some of the other BSD sites.
Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
sites with graphs rather than ma
2011/12/16 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
> wrote:
>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>
> it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
> usin
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>>
>> it might be worth highlighting that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>>
>> 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 stoc
Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> 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 a
Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> 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: W
On 15 December 2011 06:49, Tony McC wrote:
> I suggest always ignoring benchmarks. They are like reading the
> astrology column in a tabloid newspaper. Instead, try FreeBSD for your
> work. Is it fast enough? Surely that is all you need to know. FreeBSD
> is quite fast enough for my needs and I
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Pieter de Goeje spaketh thusly:
-}Detailed results here:
-}http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
LOL! Pretty much 2 entirely different systems, even running different screen
resolutions. Tnx for this link.
-}
-}As usual, the phoronix benchmarks are ver
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
