Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:24:56 +0100 From: Gerald Heinig <gheinig@syskonnect.de> To: kamalp@acm.org Cc: Robert Ryan <rustyryan882000@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 Message-ID: <41DE5568.1060000@syskonnect.de> In-Reply-To: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Kamal,
I don't know about any switches for ULE. My point is that it's not
particularly meaningful to compare a system that's built for SMP to one
that isn't. There have been a number of tests (sorry, don't have time to
dig them all out) of systems with MP locks against systems without on a
uniprocessor machine. The systems with MP locks were all slower.
I remember a test done with Linux (2.4 IIRC) compiled with MP support
and without; there were significant differences. Tests with Solaris x86
against Linux on a 1-processor machine also showed Solaris performing
poorly. Use a proper MP box ("proper" meaning >= 4 CPUs) and the picture
usually changes.
I'd be interested to see the same test done on a 4 CPU box.
Cheers,
Gerald
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> --- Gerald Heinig <gheinig@syskonnect.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Robert,
>>
>>the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems
>>only.
>>It says nothing about multiprocessor performance,
>>which is what FreeBSD
>>is aiming for.
>
> Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure
> that performance is optimal on a uniprocessor machine
> too?
>
>
>>It's comparing apples with oranges.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Gerald
>>
>
> Netbsd works for upto 4 processors. So you should be
> able to run the same tests on a quad-processor SMP
> machine.
>
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
>>Robert Ryan wrote:
>>
>>>Fellow FreeBSD developers,
>>>
>>>I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable.
>>>
>>>Check this out:
>>
>>http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/
>>
>>>As I predicted more than a year ago FreeBSD 5.3
>>
>>has
>>
>>>finally lost its only advantage: performance.
>>
>>NetBSD
>>
>>>2.0 shows that when you write code the right way
>>
>>and
>>
>>>end up with SOLUTIONS AND NOT HACKS you have a
>>
>>system
>>
>>>that works, and works well on all platforms.
>>>
>>>This is the consequence of a series of mistakes
>>
>>made
>>
>>>by the FreeBSD developers, the most important
>>
>>being
>>
>>>too arrogant and selfish to listen to Matt Dillon,
>>
>>the
>>
>>>man that warned you all about this. What did he
>>
>>get
>>
>>>in return? An expulsion from your gentlemen club.
>>>
>>>Poul-Henning Kamp has been using FreeBSD to push
>>
>>his
>>
>>>personal agenda, with completely useless features
>>
>>such
>>
>>>as GEOM and devfs, instead of concentrating on the
>>>real
>>>problem. The fact that your heavily mutexed system
>>>doesn't work and never will.
>>>
>>>Jeff Roberson's ULE is still broken but don't
>>
>>worry,
>>
>>>Matt Dillon will be hacking a much better
>>
>>scheduler
>>
>>>for DragonFly that you can later borrow.
>>>
>>>Mike Smith warned you about committee-designed
>>
>>code
>>
>>>years ago, why don't you listen? Why do you insist
>>
>>on
>>
>>>this arrogant pose and on treating potential
>>>contributors like pariahs?
>>>
>>>Why do you tolerate assholes like Dag-Erling and
>>>Poul-Henning?
>>>
>>>I hope you can learn something from the NetBSD
>>
>>people
>>
>>>before it's too late for FreeBSD. They managed to
>>
>>do
>>
>>>much more with less resources. You should feel
>>
>>ashamed
>>
>>>of yourselves.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>PS: if I've offended anyone (yeah, I singled a few
>>>out)
>>>, prove me wrong, but spare me your insultedness.
>>>It's become a pathetic hobby in -core.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41DE5568.1060000>