From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 16:54:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D681065676 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from schulra@earlham.edu) Received: from chkenon.earlham.edu (chkenon.earlham.edu [159.28.1.87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2818FC25 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:42 +0000 (UTC) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1323967030-037b9f16aa150e90001-XDYc8F Received: from tdream.lly.earlham.edu (tdream.lly.earlham.edu [159.28.7.241]) by chkenon.earlham.edu with ESMTP id C4amwHprtB3nCyz5; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:37:10 -0500 (EST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: schulra@earlham.edu X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 159.28.7.241 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:38:20 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Schultz X-X-Sender: schulra@tdream.lly.earlham.edu To: Pieter de Goeje In-Reply-To: <4EEA16D1.2010900@degoeje.nl> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EEA16D1.2010900@degoeje.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Barracuda-Connect: tdream.lly.earlham.edu[159.28.7.241] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1323967030 X-Barracuda-URL: http://159.28.1.87:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at earlham.edu X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.89 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.89 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0 tests=BSF_SC5_SA210e, SARE_ADLTSUB4 X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.83162 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.89 SARE_ADLTSUB4 Apparent spam seems to contain porn subject 0.00 BSF_SC5_SA210e Custom Rule SA210e X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:01:07 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD , "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:46 -0000 On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Pieter de Goeje spaketh thusly: -}Detailed results here: -}http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 LOL! Pretty much 2 entirely different systems, even running different screen resolutions. Tnx for this link. -} -}As usual, the phoronix benchmarks are very misleading. Also, they tested fbsd RC2. This same thing has come up repeatedly. Seems to me "big waves" happened when fbsd 8.0 was coming out and phoronix tested RC1 or RC2. Unless my memory is in error (and it may well be), on the 8.0 "comparison" fiasco, it was pointed out that testing a fbsd RC release is like racing but being preventing from going full throttle. There are debugging hooks and various extra code bits that slow things down and are not taken out until the stable release. They *can* be taken out by the end-SA, but phoronix stated they used a stock kernel. That phoronix did this again makes me wonder... I have to agree with and cannot stress enough the importance of testing in the environment it is to be run in, with the software that is to be run on it. I used to be a massive linux fan, right up until the day I put freebsd up against several *nix boxen (IIRC Redhat, Debian, SuSE and IRIX) in a particular application I was re-working. I had to run the test several times, the difference was so great. Fbsd didn't just beat the others, it rolled 'em, smoked 'em and tapped them in the ashtray. But this was with _our_ hardware configurations and _our_ software configurations and tweaks. Currently we have a mixture of linux and fbsd in production and test. Some of the things we do run better on linux, some run better on fbsd. And if they're close, I'll pick fbsd mostly for personal reasons, e.g. it just makes more sense to me, some things I like to do are more easily done in fbsd, ... FWIW, YMMV, yadda yadda. ;> -- Randy (schulra@earlham.edu) 765.983.1283 <*> nosce te ipsum