From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov  7 13:48:38 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76D3CCF
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:48:38 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E748FC0A
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:48:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7EmbT1005957;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:48:37 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qA7EmbUf005954;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:48:37 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:48:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgbench performance is lagging compared to Linux and DragonflyBSD?
In-Reply-To: <A396E61A-10A4-40A1-B7FC-97AA2C0B7340@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211071547170.5942@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <50980ADD.4010402@rawbw.com>
 <CAGH67wScvnE7gYzVVtfehYbVfM465vrLjP9bX4KXSp8Sq-25mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211061025210.18204@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <A396E61A-10A4-40A1-B7FC-97AA2C0B7340@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:48:37 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>,
 "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:48:39 -0000

>>
>> actually FreeBSD defaults are actually good for COMMON usage. and can be tuned.
>>
>> default MAXBSIZE is one exception.
>
> "Common usage" is vague. While FreeBSD might do ok for some applications (dev box, simple workstation/laptop, etc), there are other areas that require additional tuning to get better perf that arguably shouldn't as much (or there should be templates for doing so): 10GbE and mbuf and network tuning; file server and file descriptor, network tuning, etc; low latency desktop and scheduler tweaking; etc.

still any idea why MAXBSIZE is 128kB by default. for modern hard disk it 
is a disaster. 2 or even 4 megabyte is OK.

>
> Not to say that freebsd is entirely at fault, but because it's more of a commodity OS that Linux, more tweaking is required...
actually IMHO much more tweaking is needed with linux, at least from what 
i know from other people. And they are not newbies