From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 12:36:19 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 DF5CF1065670; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:36:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@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 5DAD68FC19; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:36:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1L5JO0-0004bX-9s>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:20:52 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1L5JO0-0002wi-8m>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:20:52 +0100 Message-ID: <492D3E95.1000106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:18:29 +0000 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081124) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <20081125173657.GA50429@freebsd.org> <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730811251246nf39e825s95a25ae394948e06@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: Adrian Chadd , 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 12:36:20 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: ... > > OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this > must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what > does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as > default). The hold on gcc 4.3 in FreeBSD is, after all, political > (licencing). This is very bad to read :-( Many of my colleaugues are involved in HPC, very little of them (including myself) utilizing FreeBSD even due to the lack of fast compilers. Yes, we all can use the port, that is right, but for those not so familiar and deep inside the underlying OS, with newer, better hardware (CPUs with some interesting hardware features like SSE3/4) a on-track-following compiler like GCC 4.3 could make use of special features introduced in newer hardware and even due to better optimizations compile a faster OS. And the result, even in 3% or 5% performance gain is appreciated if model-runs taking days or weeks! Regards, Oliver > > If FreeBSD base ever switches to LLVM+clang, this means libc will be > compiled with a non-gcc compiler which will forever change the > performance for simple "real world" benchmarks. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"