From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 28 09:35:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A797C16A41C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:35:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B7E43D1D for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:35:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from inchoate.gsoft.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5S9YwnN027499; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:04:59 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:04:18 +0930 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <1dbad315050621051525f4c6fc@mail.gmail.com> <200506211451.j5LEpA2W024350@lurza.secnetix.de> <20050628092126.GB48140@isis.sigpipe.cz> In-Reply-To: <20050628092126.GB48140@isis.sigpipe.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3602168.TQE5VqBfCS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200506281904.48464.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 () ALL_TRUSTED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 203.31.81.10 Cc: Michael Schuh , Roman Neuhauser Subject: Re: FreeBSD MySQL still WAY slower than Linux 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, 28 Jun 2005 09:35:06 -0000 --nextPart3602168.TQE5VqBfCS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:51, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > No you don't. You want to make a side-by-side comparison > of two products, and if one of them underperforms, it just > underperforms. You cannot use a poor location selection > strategy in the driver as an excuse for poor operation. Why not? It's not a side-by-side comparison if the underlying hardware is different.. I don't think ascribing ALL the poor performance to being on the wrong part= of=20 the disk is putting your head in the sand, but it DOES make a difference. > In all honesty, I'm getting somewhat irritated by all the > "dd is meaningless performance measurement tool, use something > real" and similar arguments: dd is a real command for real > work, and if it shows abysmal performance of sequential writes, > then there's a problem. dd is a useful start, but you shouldn't read too much into the results sinc= e,=20 in general, dd doesn't reflect real world usage patterns. There are some people who seem to want to ignore the results and shoot them= =20 down with bland assertions about how poorly the tests have been run. There= =20 are also people doing crappy tests, however there IS a middle ground where = I=20 think most reasonable people are sitting - they want decent tests, and have= a=20 good attitude to fixing the problems. =2D-=20 Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C --nextPart3602168.TQE5VqBfCS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCwRm45ZPcIHs/zowRAlKUAJsEJoQuUwQoyZCyuYde3JcGJgJluQCdEL8Y Nj77+PjQAZdjV8NaTN11u4I= =jvhk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3602168.TQE5VqBfCS--