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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 25 Nov 2008 =20 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 =20 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 =20 know on which OS it performs best, you would test the same Java =20 version on the OS' in question (or at least you should do that, to not =20 compare apples and oranges). If you want to run number crunching software, you are interested in =20 high computing throughput of your app, so you use a compiler which =20 performs best for your code in question (which would mean probably the =20 Intel compiler or the Portland compiler on Linux, maybe the Sun =20 compiler on Solaris, and probably gcc on FreeBSD). You also want to =20 optimize the code for your CPU (it makes a difference if you do =20 floating point calculations and are allowed to use the SSEx or =20 whatever instructions), and not some generic settings the OS comes with. The "benchmark" presented there is flawed in a lot of ways. No =20 descrition what they really want to benchmark, no description what =20 each subtest benchmarks (e.g. lame is performing on one CPU and =20 occasionally performs IO, what does this benchmark mean? That your =20 multi-CPU system is mostly idle and can be used to browse the net =20 without that you notice any impact). Only absolute numbers and no =20 relative performance comparision (percentage of difference). =20 Inconsistent starting point (not the same compiler, not the same java =20 version, ...) in case you want to promote an OS for specialized tasks =20 (there are comments which tell FreeBSD would be good for raytracing, =20 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 =20 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 =20 is there and complain or switch if it works better somewhere else. =20 People which care about compute intense stuff, will install their =20 preferred compiler anyway. Bye, Alexander. --=20 So so is good, very good, very excellent good: and yet it is not; it is but so so. =09=09-- William Shakespeare, "As You Like It" http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081126094314.119834gt66jv0g00>