From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 15:29:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3ADF1065679 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martin.mato@wanadoo.fr) Received: from smtp.univ-perp.fr (smtp.univ-perp.fr [IPv6:2001:660:6302:1:218:feff:fe7c:5a12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173248FC22 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [194.167.138.5] (pcmartino.univ-perp.fr [194.167.138.5]) by smtp.univ-perp.fr (8.13.1/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id n8UFTNjD020537 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:09 +0200 From: Martin MATO User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtp.univ-perp.fr [194.167.137.6]); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:24 +0200 (CEST) X-univ-perp-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-univ-perp-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-univ-perp-MailScanner-From: martin.mato@wanadoo.fr X-Spam-Status: No MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: martin.mato@wanadoo.fr List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:33 -0000 Istv=E1n a =E9crit=A0: have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? you might have overlooked it. yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1] wrote: Since the article says that they left the debugging fe= atures on I think this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same= compiler which is available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off= in this version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason to be suprised. _______________________________________________ [2]freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list [3]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr= eebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to " [4]freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" greetings maybe it is just a dumb thought, but=A0 aio is enabled by default on linux kernels for vfs r/w operations? --=20 Ce message a =E9t=E9 v=E9rifi=E9 par [5]MailScanner pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de suspect n'a =E9t=E9 trouv=E9. CRI UPVD http://www.univ-perp.fr References 1. 3D"mailto:s4mmael@gmail.com" 2. 3D"mailto:freebsd-performance@fr= 3. 3D"http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman= 4. 3D"mailto:freebsd-performance-un= 5. 3D"http://www.mailscanner.info/"