Hi,
ivo...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the original thread topic: I've communicated with the OP and it
appears his method of benchmarking had an error so the problems that
appear in his post are bogus.
It is not quite true that the "method" is bogus, there just seems to be
a huge difference bet
On Feb 13, 2009 8:27pm, Josh Paetzel wrote:
In my limited experience with VMWare linux seems to have near bare metal
disk performance. FreeBSD seems to incur a significant performance penalty.
For instance on my laptop, running OSX and VMWare Fusion, FreeBSd virtual
machines can't saturate
On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
As previously demonstrated by me and others, Linux usually has
significantly better file system performance in the non-virtualized
case, so the difference could be simply increased by the
virtualization.
In my limited experience with VMWare l
2009/2/11 Antony Mawer :
> How would one go about gathering data on such a scenario to help improve
> this? We were planning a project involving VMware deployments with FreeBSD
> 7.1 systems in the near future, but if performance is that bad it is likely
> to be a show stopper.
I have now tested
Antony Mawer wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
>>> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
(However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2
unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench
does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ pa
Ivan Voras wrote:
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
(However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2
unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench
does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the
output under linux to
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
>> (However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2
>> unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench
>> does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the
>> output under linux to the "pro
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
(However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2 unixbench
outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench does a cat
/proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the output under
linux to the "procinfo" file.)
Of course I forgot t
Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
1 2 4
freebsd 12.0009 13.6348 12.9402 (MB/s)
linux 376.145 651.314 634.649 (MB/s)
Both virtual machi
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to deploy a production FreeBSD web site (database cluster, apache
> cluster, ip failover using carp, etc.), however I'm experiencing painful
> disk I/O throughput problems which currently does not make the above
> project viable. I've done some rudimentar
Hi,
I want to deploy a production FreeBSD web site (database cluster, apache
cluster, ip failover using carp, etc.), however I'm experiencing painful
disk I/O throughput problems which currently does not make the above
project viable. I've done some rudimentary benchmarking of two
identically
11 matches
Mail list logo
