From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 08:43:24 2008 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 1E30D1065675; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:43:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1C78FC22; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:43:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD9E2D0E7.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.208.231]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFB42E13F; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166AE15F41B; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:15 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1227688995; bh=5SjEPpufO1+7YoQwYu+d/JTMRSJHhZ77q Q3oXcOVbp0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=JQhQtgdTHgMWFZfaqhN1krD8vZHj0K8DeMJTtZPp76WoBrpIlqzgttijWz1XSd5+z XKIHzGaDhpPelPHN4L3B6NLKwoycw3uqp+Au8SRaSfABEpV8gWUvkhS2wy2GuwLtjwV EporVicz/RGaJdOyZGBgjrBRYb9RkB/4GI6frzsiUq6bWmNEiFMsBXdMNZKXfW4LlDj tYMgS7npRg4TU6JxADTkayaaYW6DJcdTonGgWW1tRY547R9br0RDpkiEuKoSDBanV4+ 7ED69zaHUHq8H8XElktNY+2CZrnfyoyvCJZga87FlnEBBDbx0ClCZSSJ4prU6IHnTkx pJ/H9vMdQ== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id mAQ8hEu7030905; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20081126094314.119834gt66jv0g00@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:14 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Ivan Voras References: <20081125173657.GA50429@freebsd.org> <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-ID: BDFB42E13F.32141 X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-12.79, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, FB_ALMOST_SEX 2.11, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 BETA 2 vs Opensolaris vs Ubuntu performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:43:24 -0000 Quoting Ivan Voras (from Tue, 25 Nov 2008 =20 21:46:35 +0100): > 2008/11/25 Adrian Chadd : >> 2008/11/25 Ivan Voras : >> >>>> 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