From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 30 11:49:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20647106566C for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02188FC13 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1NF4kt-0001xy-8O>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:49:23 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1NF4kt-00026b-6m>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:49:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4B13B170.7030103@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:50:08 +0000 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091126) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Cran References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org> <20091130094315.GA94119@icarus.home.lan> <20091130112912.000016c1@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20091130112912.000016c1@unknown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:26 -0000 Bruce Cran wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:43:15 -0800 > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > >> I haven't looked at the Phoronix Test Suite[1], which is what's being >> used for testing "threaded I/O". I don't understand what "threaded >> I/O" means in this context; I'm assuming it means making a separate >> LWP for each I/O transaction, e.g. multiple LWPs for I/O (within a >> single program). Some technical details of the implementation/test >> methodology would need to be provided for someone to assist in >> tracking down the problem. >> > > I've found the benchmark it's using: it runs tiobench from > http://sourceforge.net/projects/tiobench/ with the parameters > > -f 16, 64, 128, 256 > -t 4, 8, 16, 32 > > It's another project that for some reason doesn't produce releases - > the last version was back in 2002. If someone's re-running the > benchmark it might be better to use the version from cvs. > All right, due to my English 9I'm not a native English speaker) and limited knowledge of designs and imlementations of OSs, I will be careful formulating the next statement. Many people are, as well as I, not very tight bound to the internals of an Operating System like Linux, OpenSolaris or even FreeBSD. If one has to decide to switch or use an OS, he will look for benchmarks or even benchmark suites - and probably run luckily into Phoronoix-testsuite. But this suite seems to tell us a very clear message: Linux or OpenSolaris, just from the point of view of 'performance'. As a scientist, I miss SPEC2006 benchmarks, since those benchmarks are more reliable to scientific purposes, but in most cases I saw those benchmarks, they were done with a Linux (even if SPEC does more highlighting the hardware performance since the OS's performance). Disk I/O is a very crucial part of the OS if one produces lots of data contained in small files or small chunks. Are there any recent benchmarks outside Phoronix? Last time I saw a serious benchmark was from Kris Kenneway, he measured the performance of databases on SMP boxes. Regards, Oliver