On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:56:33PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote: > > Dunno about NetBSD specifically, but this suggests great differences: > http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img15.html
The problem is that it demonstrates that NetBSD's better *on that hardware* than it was. There are confounding variables. How would NetBSD perform if the disk had twice the throughput and twice the latency, and page faults were 10 times as expensive 1/3 of the time? Hell if I know. You and I may suspect that "that hardware" generalizes to "some interesting population of hardware" but it's not exactly easy to prove it. It is very different to control this test so that it actually measures even a small set of variables at a time, and all too many of the variables have nothing to do with changes to NetBSD at all. -- Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
