Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:21:10 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: kamalp@acm.org Cc: Robert Ryan <rustyryan882000@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 Message-ID: <20050107092110.GG49329@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <41DE4F3D.8050509@syskonnect.de> <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Kamal R. Prasad wrote: >=20 > > Hi Robert, > >=20 > > the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems > > only. > > It says nothing about multiprocessor performance, > > which is what FreeBSD=20 > > is aiming for. > Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure > that performance is optimal on a uniprocessor machine > too? I don't know, but if it did that would only affect scheduling, and only in the ULE case at that. ULE was broken in 5.3-RELEASE. I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeBSD. Ceri --=20 Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.) --QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFB3lSGocfcwTS3JF8RAgjJAJ9uObfcjWSmezBKHGoOoEHjNgEmkACgwO3I IdpgvseRqrQ83ofZQ9NvMZU= =O1Zp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050107092110.GG49329>