From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 14:11:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 104B437B405 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:11:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 12820 invoked by uid 100); 16 Jun 2001 21:11:15 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15147.52083.851230.896203@guru.mired.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:11:15 -0500 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS In-Reply-To: <200106162031.f5GKVfm16209@saturn.cs.uml.edu> References: <200106162031.f5GKVfm16209@saturn.cs.uml.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Albert D. Cahalan types: > > I'll bet they didn't even bother compiling up a > > kernel... something that is utterly trivial in a FreeBSD system, and > > if they did they certainly didn't bother tuning it. > Lots of places would not allow this. Heavy tweaking requires heavy > documentation to be reproducable by a future admin. It adds cost. > There is a "don't break anything" concern. Building a custom kernel on BSD isn't heavy tweaking, it's SOP. If you follow recommended practices, no documentation is required to make the results reproduceable on that system. If you have good admin procedures, then no documentation is required to reproduce the system on new hardware after the other is destroyed in a fire. > Go on, admit it. The benchmark was fair to FreeBSD, and you just > don't like to see the results. Ok, the bechmark was fair. To complete the trio(*), the Pope is a pagan and bears hold it until they're out of the woods. They didn't run all the systems in truly out of the box state, and didn't say *how* the selected what tuning they did. They didn't discuss the design goals of the systems, which are different and will influence the effect of measurements. This was a puff piece masquerading as a benchmark. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message