From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 24 09:47:30 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5312170
 for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:30 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz)
Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (mail.neosystem.cz
 [IPv6:2001:41d0:2:5ab8::10:15])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8CF10F
 for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (unknown [127.0.10.15])
 by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FCDCE99;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:47:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.neosystem.cz
Received: from neon.sn.neosystem.cz (unknown [172.19.9.2])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8824CCE93;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:47:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:36:48 +0100
From: Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>
To: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3
Message-Id: <20130324103648.5df136009292994a41f39104@neosystem.cz>
In-Reply-To: <f6c080db-4f32-4d4f-966a-b0af4a8c9b99@email.android.com>
References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com>
 <CAF3xD3nDDUYB94TS9AUUQ=CPztB1S8mU4fRwNB5GupmK8MgwXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it>
 <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz>
 <f6c080db-4f32-4d4f-966a-b0af4a8c9b99@email.android.com>
Organization: neosystem.cz
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:27:12 +0000
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:30 -0000

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100
Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> wrote:

> Ok, I'll try tomorrow and I'll post results here. Some particular
> parameter to use?

Well, sysbench's "simple" is really simple ;-), it performs a single
SELECTs (unlike "nontrx", which can be made to perform also writes). Table
size you've chosen, 10M of rows, is IMHO reasonable, as it can be
considered "big" table but at the same time it should fit into memory
completely (so you don't unintentionally pull controller and/or disks into
the picture). I would also recommend to disable query cache for the test,
as it can influence the results for some test modes (and not only
positively).

--
						Daniel Bilik
						neosystem.cz