From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 19 09:47:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8201065678 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:47:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC25B8FC1E for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:2831:a229:70d2:ba0b]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BA31A4AC34; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:47:22 +0400 (MSK) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:47:20 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1704813846.20111219134720@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Matthew Seaman In-Reply-To: <4EEF0025.6040205@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4EEF0025.6040205@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:47:24 -0000 Hello, Matthew. You wrote 19 =E4=E5=EA=E0=E1=F0=FF 2011 =E3., 13:13:09: >> (1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" FreeBSD >>=20 >> (2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" Phoronix >> (communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare >> / meaningless, ets) > (2a) Ignore Phoronix, other than explaining concisely why their numbers > are complete balderdash. Publish our own benchmarks, done with care and > rigour and using well defined, repeatable, peer reviewed methodology > that anyone can repeat. Aggressively publicise these results. Ok, it is The Way too, I agree. But in modern world, unfortunately (for me, and I'm sure, for many FreeBSD hackers), keywords are "Aggressive= ly publicise" but not "done with care and rigour and using well defined, repeatable, peer reviewed methodology that anyone can repeat" >> (3) Lose [potential] userbase. > Indeed. Unfortunately "performance" is /the/ deciding factor in many OS > choices, never mind that it is an impossibly complex subject to > generalise to a few management-friendly numbers in a one-size-fits-all > abstract way. Having only one source of published numbers suggesting > that "OS Foo is better" *even if those numbers are completely bogus* > will have a disproportionate effect. Yep. --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov