From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 22 09:57:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC13106564A for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:57:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54618FC0A for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:57:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbcc3 with SMTP id c3so6641120pbc.13 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:57:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A4cyLtiVBvQM51eqyQjqZMWrJ2fQm5S6SGl4HQ96Plw=; b=jUHKqs15YqPdaVICmknEg+VQO67bm/obRMhmBOecaZ4fuxbow0xsNtnN14av8KlQwm MP6aDwm7NPSu21VZha90LyoOjgM7x7ELFRHG5iBGW2T2HH/fquOMG1FfjVzb/7vJS2wb dndIMg4Mytw30nJSWvQQ8QXHkq5bqoykRJt3c= Received: by 10.68.73.65 with SMTP id j1mr21599102pbv.80.1324547856227; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:57:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.12.199 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:56:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EF2C613.3020609@digsys.bg> References: <4EF25468.9040204@gmail.com> <4EF2C613.3020609@digsys.bg> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:55 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Sxd9t6UzBCStho0KnWIGVb0fdgU Message-ID: To: Daniel Kalchev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:57:37 -0000 On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 22.12.11 00:33, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: >> >> Using the same argument one can say that Ferrari F430 vs Toyota Prius is= a >> meaningless comparison because the under-the-hood equipment is different= . > > =C2=A0Of course, it is meaningless, the Ferrari will lose big time in the= fuel > consumption comparison! I believe it will also lose the price comparison = as > well. Not to speak the availability comparison. That's an oxymoron, right? The comparison cannot be meaningless---the reality is F430 will indeed use up more fuel than Prius. If a benchmark demonstrates a true reality, how can that benchmark be possibly meaningless??? Same benchmark might be irrelevant to someone who wants to know how fast they can get from A to B, but irrelevant is not a synonym for meaningless! > You say that comparison is meaningless, yet you intend to compare those t= wo > cars? I didn't say that at all, I was demonstrating fallacy of the argument that the comparisons were meaningless. > Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure ho= w > different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several > measurable metrics, that you will use to later declare the winner in each= . > Besides, you need to define a baseline and be aware of what theoretical > max/min values are possible. Treating a benchmark as a binary win/lose is rather naive, it's not a competition, and (I hope) no serious person ever does that. A proper benchmark shows true strength and weaknesses so than a well-informed intelligent decision can be taken by an individual according to that individual's needs. The caveat, of course, is making your methodology clear and methods repeatable! Cheers, -- Igor M.