Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:47:04 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0? Message-ID: <20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <hf0h0p$lm4$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org> <hf0h0p$lm4$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>: > Thomas Backman wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, 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. > > Corrected link: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_benchmarks&num=1 > > > > And yeah, quite honestly: disk scheduling in FreeBSD appears to suck... The only reason I'm not switching from Linux. :( "All operating systems were left with their default options during the installation process..." It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance improvements can be made in most cases by raising it. While it would be nice if FreeBSD shipped with a more performant default setting, it would also be nice if mindless benchmark drones would quit assuming that every system ships pre-configured to perform optimally in their benchmarks. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran>