Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: <unknown@riverstyx.net> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Mindcruft ... Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905051133190.17151-100000@hades.riverstyx.net> In-Reply-To: <000401be9729$59dad700$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, I figure that's the only thing one of these types of benchmarks *could* measure. You're taking identical hardware and seeing what each OS can do, without considering what's best for that OS. --- tani hosokawa river styx internet On Wed, 5 May 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Maybe a better way would be to set an amount of money, then let each team > > choose the hardware in the budget, based on list prices from the > > manufacturers. Each team gets a $15000 server and then they go head to > > head on performance. > > That presumes that you are trying to measure price/performance ratio. And > you would have to include the cost of the operating system in there or your > comparison makes no sense. > > The problem with so many of these benchmarks is there's no explanation for > why the methodology was chosen as it was, so it's not clear what the > benchmark is attempting to measure. > > The recent Mindcraft benchmark of NT versus Linux is a shining example of > this. Why Win98 as the client? Why four network cards? Why a RAID system? > Why 1Gb of RAM? Absent any other explanation, the only conclusion we can > draw is that they did things this way because Microsoft wanted them to. > > DS > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9905051133190.17151-100000>