From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 13:41:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A1D16A4CE; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:41:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtps-vbr2.xs4all.nl (smtps-vbr2.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4370F43D3F; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:41:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mhellwig@xs4all.nl) Received: from [10.0.0.182] (xinagnet.xs4all.nl [80.126.243.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtps-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j06Df6tZ023784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:41:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mhellwig@xs4all.nl) Message-ID: <41DD3FF5.3010709@xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:41:09 +0100 From: "Martin P. Hellwig" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041111 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nguyen Tam Chinh References: <20050106115726.52478.qmail@web26608.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <41DD32C0.40608@xs4all.nl> <20050106155714.X1348@unix.local> In-Reply-To: <20050106155714.X1348@unix.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:14:57 +0000 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Robert Ryan Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:41:09 -0000 Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote: > Please don't treat this seriously. Benchmarks are just benchmarks. But > the benchmarks and comparison, widespreaded through sites like > slashdot or osnews, sometimes affect the interest and view point of > some new and potential users. > May be we should do some full benchmarks as an answer and to review > the true status of our 5.x, 4.x and others? True, I don't take it very seriously but it does say something, like all things you measure it shoul be put into perspective. I have already contacted the author of the benchmark, in short I've asked him if he could do the test with latest stable DragonFly too. I don't see the logic in testing FBSD4 as this is a "Legacy" branch, just as stated on www.FreeBSD.org But perhaps the test should be redone on multiple popular role based hardware configuration, including OpenBSD, DragonFly and any other OS you wish to test. Roles based in the meaning of benchmarking typical firewall, webserver, database, file and print servers roles. But there other things that must be benchmarked too if you want a near objective view, like stability, hardware support, security and design. Personally I don't give a * about performance as long as it doesn't hold me back, but what I do find irritating is that when there is a security issue in a port I should have to rebuild all my ports because of some libthreading issue. Now when talking about a few home boxes this is not a problem, but in a productivity environment with dozen machines having all its specific adaption on configuration and ports, thing get to start ugly. Of course this problem is not a real challenge it is just an inconvenience if you did not expected it. Just like installing a MS patch on the server and finding out that all shared HP printer don't work anymore ;-) Aah well keeps me off the street and out of trouble. -- mph