From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 19 10:40:01 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 4B95E106566B for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:40:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lars@e-new.0x20.net) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [IPv6:2001:aa8:fffb:1::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C541C8FC12 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E41E6A61CD; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:59 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.0x20.net Received: from mail.0x20.net ([217.69.76.211]) by mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aangjlmx5l_s; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from e-new.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [IPv6:2001:aa8:fffb:1::3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027186A61CB; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from e-new.0x20.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by e-new.0x20.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBJAdw5Y051338; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lars@e-new.0x20.net) Received: (from lars@localhost) by e-new.0x20.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pBJAdwxF050297; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lars) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:39:58 +0100 From: Lars Engels To: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <20111219103958.GB12597@e-new.0x20.net> References: <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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEF0025.6040205@infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Editor: VIM - Vi IMproved 7.3 X-Operation-System: FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE-p3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 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 10:40:01 -0000 --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:09AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > Here is one problem: we have choice from three items: > >=20 > > (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) >=20 > (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. >=20 Slashdot and others don't ignore Phoronix, so (2a) is only and option if you accept (3). My personal opinion: Phoronix may compare apples to oranges from time to time and it might be possible to catch up with Linux' results by tweaking some system parameters, but Joe Average expects a fast and working OS out-of-the-box and after reading a Phoronix benchmark, he will probably prefer Linux over FreeBSD. /me thinks that our userbase is not big enough to put off potential new or existing users, so we should question our default config values or clearly and publicly explain why the results for FreeBSD are slower because of data integrity / security / $other_reasons. > > (3) Lose [potential] userbase. >=20 > 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. --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7vFH4ACgkQKc512sD3afgDcACgr9HKuz+iZPbDPIUXp30JbKM7 3UUAoIzS9N61djU8ogO+RzHcN72x1iFf =P+Np -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--