From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 25 10:04:42 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA9916A4CE; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:04:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bgo1smout1.broadpark.no (bgo1smout1.broadpark.no [217.13.4.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C128243D1D; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:04:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no ([217.13.4.93]) by bgo1smout1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IFH00HKPYE8OM30@bgo1smout1.broadpark.no>; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:58:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dsa.des.no ([80.203.228.37]) by bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IFH00HNSYPHH450@bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no>; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:05:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dsa.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 65FC3EC99A; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (xps.des.no [10.0.0.12]) by dsa.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 85E7AEC2ED; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 72A6233C09; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:04:35 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) In-reply-to: <426C6B1D.3040704@elischer.org> To: Julian Elischer Message-id: <86ll778958.fsf@xps.des.no> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on dsa.des.no References: <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com> <20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <20050425000459.GA28667@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424204611.072105a0@64.7.153.2> <20050425010242.GA44110@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> <426C6B1D.3040704@elischer.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: cc: Mike Tancsa cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 25 Apr 2005 10:04:42 -0000 Julian Elischer writes: > I wish people would stop trying to deny that we have serious work in > front of us to get the VFS and disk IO figures back to where they were > before. A great way to help getting this fixed would be to write automated benchmarks and regression tests, or at least solid test protocols. The documentation for these benchmarks and tests should clearly explain which (part of a) real-life workload they are intended to simulate. These benchmarks and tests would serve a double purpose: as hard evidence to back your arguments in discussions about performance regressions, and as tools for developers who wish to do something about such regressions. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no