Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:14 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 BETA 2 vs Opensolaris vs Ubuntu performance Message-ID: <20081126094314.119834gt66jv0g00@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> References: <DE23C2B055DA4BC683BDCAA95FF7B736@multiplay.co.uk> <gggmbb$un6$1@ger.gmane.org> <20081125173657.GA50429@freebsd.org> <ggher5$qq0$2@ger.gmane.org> <d763ac660811251202n5dafbbl896ad194435436a0@mail.gmail.com> <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Quoting Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:46:35 +0100): > 2008/11/25 Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>: >> 2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>: >> >>>> I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference >>>> comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses... >>> >>> You're very likely right. Ubuntu 8.10 has gcc 4.3.x - it could make for >>> the small difference in gzip and 7z compression performance. >> >> Well, that should be a reasonably easy thing to test and feed back to >> the author. > > OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this If you want to test OS performance and use Java programs in there to do so, you would use the same Java version, wouldn't you? They didn't. If you want to run some high performance java software and you want to know on which OS it performs best, you would test the same Java version on the OS' in question (or at least you should do that, to not compare apples and oranges). If you want to run number crunching software, you are interested in high computing throughput of your app, so you use a compiler which performs best for your code in question (which would mean probably the Intel compiler or the Portland compiler on Linux, maybe the Sun compiler on Solaris, and probably gcc on FreeBSD). You also want to optimize the code for your CPU (it makes a difference if you do floating point calculations and are allowed to use the SSEx or whatever instructions), and not some generic settings the OS comes with. The "benchmark" presented there is flawed in a lot of ways. No descrition what they really want to benchmark, no description what each subtest benchmarks (e.g. lame is performing on one CPU and occasionally performs IO, what does this benchmark mean? That your multi-CPU system is mostly idle and can be used to browse the net without that you notice any impact). Only absolute numbers and no relative performance comparision (percentage of difference). Inconsistent starting point (not the same compiler, not the same java version, ...) in case you want to promote an OS for specialized tasks (there are comments which tell FreeBSD would be good for raytracing, as the corresponding subtest was the fastest on FreeBSD), and so on. Did I overlook some part where they tell how they test? Do they calculate the average of several runs? > must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what > does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as > default). The hold on gcc 4.3 in FreeBSD is, after all, political > (licencing). Users most of the time don't care what the reasons are, they use what is there and complain or switch if it works better somewhere else. People which care about compute intense stuff, will install their preferred compiler anyway. Bye, Alexander. -- So so is good, very good, very excellent good: and yet it is not; it is but so so. -- William Shakespeare, "As You Like It" http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081126094314.119834gt66jv0g00>