From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov  7 13:47:23 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D2497F
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:47:23 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3376B8FC08
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7El6Km005948;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:47:06 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qA7EkxdV005945;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:46:59 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:46:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgbench performance is lagging compared to Linux and DragonflyBSD?
In-Reply-To: <B4315143-CFCF-4B58-8E8A-394F1BCC21C2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211071545110.5942@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <50980ADD.4010402@rawbw.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211061016110.18204@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <CABzXLYPYaVuEFc2SEY1H2Wa0T6A_SHuTu=W3UEZ554j5BR01bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211061752340.20322@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <B4315143-CFCF-4B58-8E8A-394F1BCC21C2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:47:14 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>,
 "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:47:23 -0000

>> But working on software to make it better in some kind of synthetic benchmark is common in commercial software world. ("We have more performance per buck than company X")
>
> "Synthetic benchmarks" as you put it shouldn't be the ultimate basis for a decision, but instead allow users to gauge whether or
>not a certain software or hardware configuration is suitable for their 
>given workload. No more, no less.

only when OS is not tuned for benchmarks.

You see that given OS is great for some database test doing repetitively 
few operations, then you run in for YOUR workload for which OS isn't tuned 
and it's bad. Even if it is still database only workload.

Even worse that on the same machine you do other things.