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 yo
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 t
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
lem would be tracked down, maybe a benchmark issue would be
tracked down. Maybe people will stop
using RC's versus releases, I don't know. I really don't care. Just please
stop with finger pointing and being disgruntled and indignant. FOCUS!!
I'd love to say something
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
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a
>>>>> look what can be improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some
>>>>> additional people which are willing to improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tun
SD.
If you're able to setup KTR and drive it + schedgraph (just like Steve
has) and run this on a workload that is _repeatedly_ broken for you,
then you're immediately going to have a better chance at getting it
fixed. Bonus points if you can run the same benchmark on 4BSD and ULE,
report
SD.
If you're able to setup KTR and drive it + schedgraph (just like Steve
has) and run this on a workload that is _repeatedly_ broken for you,
then you're immediately going to have a better chance at getting it
fixed. Bonus points if you can run the same benchmark on 4BSD and ULE,
report
reebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what
>> can
>> be improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people
>> which are willing to improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
proved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people
> which are willing to improve it.
> > > >
> > > > This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
> could be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
> v
ed on $COMPILER. I want that
there is a reasonable quality. And for me quality is not only
stability, but also speed.
You can always have faster algorithm if it is not necessary to produce
the right answer.
But if you don't tweak, you get a fair result in a benchmark. This is
what you wi
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
ystem for speed,
> when it's clear that default setting does not make any sense. People
> will use default settings, because they trust developers that they
> thought about balanced stability, security and performance.
>
>> FreeBSD has safe default.
>
> This is what I am
; > > This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
could be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
volunteers? A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it.
Other tuning sources are welcome too.
> > >
> > > Ever
,
when it's clear that default setting does not make any sense. People
will use default settings, because they trust developers that they
thought about balanced stability, security and performance.
> FreeBSD has safe default.
This is what I am talking about. Don't complain that the benchmar
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
>
> >When FreeBSD has a bad default setup, there must be a reason for that.
> >Tell me this reason and show me that it's justified in form of some
> >other benchmark.
>
> FreeBSD has safe default. It is supposed to work out of the box on
> whatever hardware
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
for the OS is different, you might feel more
> comfortable in choosing another OS, probably a commercial OS with
> support from the vendor.
This is nonesense, you know that, regarding to my case.
>
>> If a benchmark reveals some severe weak points in FreeBSD and I have
>> to r
marks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is
>> excused by a faulty becnhmarking.
>
> Hi,
>
> it is important for the project to be known and I think that the
> benchmarks made by Phoronix help FreeBSD to gain popularity, even they
> look bad sometim
he FreeBSD Linux
emulation. Unchanged.
There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit.
When FreeBSD has a bad default setup, there must be a reason for that.
Tell me this reason and show me that it's justified in form of some
other benchmark.
FreeBSD has safe default. It
ial OS with
support from the vendor.
If a benchmark reveals some severe weak points in FreeBSD and I have
to read about obscure tweaks of non documented sysctl, then this OS
would be a no-go if I was a manager to make decissions.
Luckily, managers do not care about knobs or how diffic
is
> excused by a faulty becnhmarking.
Hi,
it is important for the project to be known and I think that the
benchmarks made by Phoronix help FreeBSD to gain popularity, even they
look bad sometimes.
Furthermore, to make a benchmark is a lot of work and the results are
useful, because at the end someone w
ge is far from perfect and needs some
>>>> additional people which are willing to improve it.
>>>>
>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could
>>>> be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
>>
improve it.
>>>
>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could
>>> be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers?
>>> A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other
>>
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 metr
ade linux
>>> to 4.2.1, then that will tell me nothing about FreeBSD vs Linux.
>> The gcc version distributed with FreeBSD was chosen for license reasons,
>> not for technical reasons. If you are OK with installing a GPLv3
>> licensed compiler on your systems, then just do i
age in the wiki - which could
> > be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers?
> > A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other
> > tuning sources are welcome too.
> >
> > Every FreeBSD dev with a wiki account can
ook what can be
> improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people which
> are willing to improve it.
>
> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could be
> referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers? A
&g
(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
additional people which
are willing to improve it.
This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could be
referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers? A
first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other tuning
sources are welcome too
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
ioned - what ever
you do, try it yourself in your environment. Do whatever amount of tuning you
do (or don't do) and try it. In our environment, fbsd stomps linux for a mail
relay. OTOH linux's iSCSI initiator stomps fbsd's.
Heh, what would be really cool even if only from an acad
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Evans"
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 proportion of fi
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
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 ask
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 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 asked to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at the end.
>
> Mat
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
estingly, 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,
Fly, Linux
> > and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> >>
iours.
Benchmarking is a mucky business..
Note that the benchmarks with Phoronix test suite are repeatable, once
installed, you can just run "./phoronix-test-suite benchmark
1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37" to repeat (as close as the system allows) the
benchmarks that started this thread.
Is
t; Sam
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, 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)
estingly, 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
> nu
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 per
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 relati
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
kless kernel,
better NUMA architecture support, etc).
And the list goes on and on.
The point is that while some of the suggestions have been good on how
to write good benchmarks (someone suggested a medium math and a worker
benchmark set of tests, which I think was on the right track), a lot
o
[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
gt; both platforms and reported only the read results. If you dig down
>> into the actual results,
>> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
>> see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
>> were both taken from the same
wo Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
> were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
> writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
> bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
> ...
>
> Fr
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
___
openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
bad thing when someone totall
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 recom
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.
>>
27;re at a roadblock -- nobody so far is
absolutely certain how to "benchmark" and compare ULE vs. 4BSD in
multiple ways, so that those of us involved here can run such utilities
and provide the data somewhere central for devs to review. I only
mention this because so far I haven't se
differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load
whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience.
What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" is not
measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark fi
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
g/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
> see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
> were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
> writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
> bad thing when someone
be possible with sysctl
and/or boot time tuneables, e.g. "vfs.hidirtybuffers").
And a last remark: Single benchmark runs do not provide reliable data.
FreeBSD comes with "ministat" to check the significance of benchmark
results. Each test should be repeated at least 5 t
And a last remark: Single benchmark runs do not provide reliable data.
FreeBSD comes with "ministat" to check the significance of benchmark
results. Each test should be repeated at least 5 times for meaningful
averages with acceptable confidence level.
The Phoronix Test Suite runs most tests a
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
lls to be swapped out within seconds on systems
with background jobs writing to disk).
> More interesting is the performance gain due to the architecture. I
> think it would be very easy for M. Larabel to repeat this benchmark with
> a "bleeding edge" Ubuntu or Suse as well. And sin
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
>
o FreeBSD optimizes
writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
should
data; I can point you to tons of systems where the
data inserted there is nonsense, sometimes even just ASCII spaces (and
that is the fault of the system vendor/BIOS manufacturer, not FreeBSD).
Sometimes identical strings are used across completely different
systems/boards (sometimes even server-clas
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 highlight
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
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
rks "the system feels sluggish" is not
> measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark
> finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system freeze for the
> user for the duration of the test -- it will be considered "win"
rs the best performance available by turning
on the default FS by a standard stock installation.
Using ZFS on Linux would be a great disadvantage and the benchmark would
turn out the same bullsh... as comparing Linux-domain only with FreeBSD
weknesses only ...
Linux distributions offer setups fo
my needs and I am simply more productive using
> it than when I use any other operating system. That is partly to do
> with my familiarity with my setup, which I have customised the way I
> want. That is something that no benchmark can allow for.
You can't ignore benchmarks be
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
