From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 12:18:31 2008 Return-Path: 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 09B1C1065672; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED078FC1A; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD9E2CF3A.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.207.58]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080342E0E2; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1455F2; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:14 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1227701894; bh=J6qYJ54uqf56bNtn57g1ygkB06sMC8y2s 02y8V24I4k=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jWDskiH1bDk07IyTgEvaR+3Qz4zd1qwNBbnxVJI4XfEC2kllBKBVZXGEryPGJUlqk BbZlcHMDnF02LYLwlCWl/7iLasOoPYJjwWyLvC/2c9Bt/6tSdktXpuQ3uOKdSQjUBOv DBczEDEIkQW0ksIACQ6F1GMoCRkgu+TUGnf0fjqEl/K3shSVLWte+fLXE4SHaTcu2Gg xhX5Xg1EaZtQ1i9+SHyDMucS7YxzbUi23Vw8M+Eydi1FeNlikBBKrmXOzo8LIqbIdAQ 6GYSxeWnGIGmHXsjqTJSO3eP4q2m+0b8mBgDJkzokvsvt1Bdc5oscptDvxfxd0eLVjZ 1ITVCi9rA== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id mAQCIE1A007498; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20081126131814.21221p9o7j3rryjo@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:14 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Ivan Voras References: <20081125173657.GA50429@freebsd.org> <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> <20081126094314.119834gt66jv0g00@webmail.leidinger.net> <9bbcef730811260155h156b7a6v8c88b0da51f28ee@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730811260155h156b7a6v8c88b0da51f28ee@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-ID: 080342E0E2.362F1 X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-11.894, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, FB_ALMOST_SEX 2.11, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 1.40, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10, SMILEY -0.50) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 BETA 2 vs Opensolaris vs Ubuntu performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:31 -0000 Quoting Ivan Voras (from Wed, 26 Nov 2008 =20 10:55:39 +0100): > 2008/11/26 Alexander Leidinger : > >> If you want to test OS performance and use Java programs in there to do s= o, >> you would use the same Java version, wouldn't you? They didn't. > > Linux: 1.6.0_0-b12 > Solaris: 1.6.0_10-b33 > FreeBSD: 1.6.0_07-b02 The important part is the _XX, not the -bYY. The bYY may be something =20 we don't care about, but the _XX part is something which may cause =20 performance differences. > Since system have their local patches (I know FreeBSD does), I don't > think it's even possible to test "exactly the same" version ;) > > But this also goes into the "What OS ships with" category. We don't ship with java at all... strictly speaking. ;) >> If you want to run number crunching software, you are interested in high >> computing throughput of your app, so you use a compiler which performs be= st >> for your code in question (which would mean probably the Intel compiler o= r >> the Portland compiler on Linux, maybe the Sun compiler on Solaris, and >> probably gcc on FreeBSD). You also want to optimize the code for your CPU >> (it makes a difference if you do floating point calculations and are allo= wed >> to use the SSEx or whatever instructions), and not some generic settings = the >> OS comes with. > > I think they went with the "stock" configurations as that's what > almost all users will use. I fully agree. But number crunching (as benchmarked, and I'm not =20 talking about LAME which has a 2% difference) is not something almost =20 all users will do. Something the masses may do with the OS is not =20 covered at all, no browser tests, no interactivity (maybe with high =20 load in the background) tests. As I said, they don't even tell what =20 they want to test (and as such, everything we can do is speculate... =20 that's not something which will lead to interesting results in the =20 thread). Bye, Alexander. --=20 Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. =09=09-- Arthur R. Miller http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137