From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 1 09:33:46 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583B01065679 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:33:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michal@ionic.co.uk) Received: from mail1.sharescope.co.uk (pm1.ionic.co.uk [85.159.80.19]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BB98FC1F for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:33:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.sharescope.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54542FC0C1 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:33:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sharescope.co.uk Received: from mail1.sharescope.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.sharescope.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35KSV18xgh+K for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:33:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.2.37] (office.ionic.co.uk [85.159.85.2]) (Authenticated sender: chris@sharescope.co.uk) by mail1.sharescope.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54390FC041 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:33:39 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4B14E2F2.7040502@ionic.co.uk> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:33:38 +0000 From: Michal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:33:46 -0000 O. Hartmann wrote: > I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the > Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O > shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the > opposite. > > oh This all reminds me of a few releases ago MySQL performance being terrible. I guess this is still the same? We've had arguments internally weather certain machines are FreeBSD like some existing or Linux like other existing as Linux always out-performed by miles. We never tested these using on OpenBSD however, so I don't know if that had the same problem...