Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:36:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Woody Carey <wcarey@cs.uoregon.edu> To: Don Wilde <don@partsnow.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Fwd: Freeware] Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980422113201.5564B-100000@statix.cs.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <353E34E3.308E0840@partsnow.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Don Wilde wrote: > I just got this in response to my 'Challenge' posted in various places. Sounds > like SPEC might be open to working with us. In looking over the solution > provided by Novell, it seems that what they did to achieve that number was to > open up massive bandwidth in hardware. I don't have any systems that have 5 PCI > slots for 100Base-T ethernet cards, and I don't have any P-][ 300Mhz chips > laying around. SCSI-3 we can do, fast-wide disks ditto. Do we have Fibre Channel > or SSC boards available to us? Is ATM stable yet? > > It'd be interesting to see how close we can get to that with less hardware, > playing the same game that the other vendors do [RELEASE: FreeBSD/Apache > Achieves 75% of Novell's SPECweb96 performance with 2/3 the Processor Speed!!!]. > Alternatively, presenting a real-world system would be more valuable to real > users. Comments? > >From what I understand about benchmarks, most vendors do funky tuning to beat their competitors on a benchmark that may or may not be indicative of anything at all. Basically, benchmarking with this sort of nonsense is agreeing to play a dirty political game and and a pointless, losing battle. Why don't we not go there, and save ourselves the trouble of discovering the error of our ways after the fact? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980422113201.5564B-100000>