From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 30 18:00:23 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 3DD161065676
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ohartman@mail.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 EAE238FC0C
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69])
	by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69)
	for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtp
	(envelope-from <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>)
	id <1Mt3TR-0005a1-1W>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:21 +0200
Received: from e178032088.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.32.88]
	helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org)
	by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69)
	for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtpsa
	(envelope-from <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>)
	id <1Mt3TQ-0000Gf-Uh>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC39CB4.9050600@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:20 +0200
From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com>	<689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com>	<6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com>	<6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com>	<b8592ed80909300522h49870749l8b8c35176225e34e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: 85.178.32.88
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:51:51 +0000
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:23 -0000

Martin MATO wrote:
>    Istv=E1n a =E9crit :
>=20
> have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff?
>=20
> you might have overlooked it.
>=20
> yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :)
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1]<s4mmael@gmail.com> wrote:=

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think=

> this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read=


That's possibly true, but the huge difference in threaded I/O and memory
copy can't be explained by simply leaving debug switches to ON.

>=20
>=20
> the
>=20
>=20
> documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which i=
s
> available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark.
>=20
>=20
> What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this
> version, but test results are the same as in 8.0
> Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason
> to be suprised.

UFS2 has its benefits, even over ZFS (less memory, speed in some cases).