Ivan Voras skrev:
O. Hartmann wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
...
OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this
must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what
does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as
default). The hold on gcc
> They can work on LLVM support and integration. Apple is putting a lot
> of effort into both llvm-gcc and clang. From the outside, it looks like
> they consider that their future. As such, it may well be ours.
I am doing some work on llvm+clang, it's still not very mature but looks
very promis
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:03:45PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Ivan Voras wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >> OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this
> >> must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what
> >> does Solaris default to n
O. Hartmann wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this
>> must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what
>> does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as
>> default). The hold on gcc 4
Ivan Voras wrote:
...
OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this
must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what
does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as
default). The hold on gcc 4.3 in FreeBSD is, after all, politica
Quoting Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 26 Nov 2008
10:55:39 +0100):
2008/11/26 Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
If you want to test OS performance and use Java programs in there to do so,
you would use the same Java version, wouldn't you? They didn't.
Linux: 1.6.0_0-b12
2008/11/26 Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want to test OS performance and use Java programs in there to do so,
> you would use the same Java version, wouldn't you? They didn't.
Linux: 1.6.0_0-b12
Solaris: 1.6.0_10-b33
FreeBSD: 1.6.0_07-b02
Since system have their local patches
Adrian Chadd wrote:
2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
2c,
Yeah, but the margin for error in these tests is undoubtedly > 2%.
AFAICS this benchmark shows that Freebsd is "up there" with these guys -
slower o
Quoting Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Tue, 25 Nov 2008
21:46:35 +0100):
2008/11/25 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
comes from the different version of gcc the different
2008/11/25 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
>>> comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses...
>>
>> You're very likely right. Ubuntu 8.10 has gcc 4.3.x - it
2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
>> comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses...
>
> You're very likely right. Ubuntu 8.10 has gcc 4.3.x - it could make for
> the small difference in gzip and 7z
Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Steven Hartland wrote:
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
>>>
>>> Was interesting until I saw this:-
>>>
>> The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of ben
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Steven Hartland wrote:
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
> >
> > Was interesting until I saw this:-
> >
>
> The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of benchmarks
> they did:
2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
2c,
Adrian
2008/11/24 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 03:28 PM 11/24/2008, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&
2008/11/25 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 12:06 PM 11/25/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> 2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
>> when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
>
> True, but then again is there such a thing as a synthetic benchmark that
> woul
At 12:06 PM 11/25/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
True, but then again is there such a thing as a synthetic benchmark
that would have a margin of error less than 2% while representing
Steven Hartland wrote:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
>
> Was interesting until I saw this:-
>
The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of benchmarks
they did: there is little difference between the systems. Depending on
the details of
Hello,
I did some calculations to take into account not only best
result, but how much it is better. I used following formulas:
If more is better then result/max(ubuntu, opensolaris,
freebsd)
If less is better then min(ubuntu, opensolaris, freebsd)/
result
Results in ph
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Phil Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry thats one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I've ever
> encountered. Benchmarks useless ( single threaded ), no useful
> analysis, not even any speculation ( informed or otherwise ).
It is representative. This stan
Sorry thats one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I've ever
encountered. Benchmarks useless ( single threaded ), no useful
analysis, not even any speculation ( informed or otherwise ).
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Steven Hartland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:28:11PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
>
> Was interesting until I saw this:-
>
> "However, it's important to reiterate that all three operating systems were
> left in their stock configurations
At 03:28 PM 11/24/2008, Steven Hartland wrote:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
Was interesting until I saw this:-
"However, it's important to reiterate that all three operating
systems were left in their stock configurations and that no
additional twe
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
Was interesting until I saw this:-
"However, it's important to reiterate that all three operating systems were left in their stock configurations and that no
additional tweaking had occurred."
I kernel debugging stuff s
23 matches
Mail list logo
