Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:07:08 +0200 From: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> To: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> Cc: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org>, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> In-Reply-To: <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160822120215.GV22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160823110159.GU18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Il 2016-08-23 22:55 Erich Dollansky ha scritto: > The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD > 11. Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, > witness) options enabled which make it significantly slower than > release versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a > desktop. It just feels much slower. > No. > All debugs in amd64 is off at time of BETA. Ok, then FreeBSD is just slower... you missed the main point. The test was done with applications compiled with unknown options. If you want to find out the impact of an operating system on you application you have to use the same compiler with the same options on all platforms. Basically, it was a compiler test named operating system benchmark. OK, now I get your point. You mean he's doing an Operative System test using an application, that is something that involve an additional complexity. I get your point, but, er... I suppose he's using pkg to install the ports or apt-get to install the packages. I mean I suppose he's lazy enough to compare binaries vs binaries. Now what you're telling me is "it's not a kernel comparison, it's an application over a kernel comparison" and I agree with you, but why should a casual reader be interested in a kernel comparison? Or, in general, what would you do with a kernel without an application? :) Sorry, I don't want to sound polemic, neither start a flame or anything, I'm just curious... And I understand clearly the philosophical differences between a Base BSD system and a Linux Distribution, but again I'm a simple person, I just stick the FreeBSD cd in, install and then do pkg install unzip. If it's slower than my colleague using Ubuntu and doing the same thing I just feel sad :) So the first outcome everyone thought about was "The RC is slower because of debugging?". No. Then the next question that pops into my mind is "The ports are slow because the binaries are compiled with the wrong options?". Thanks for your clarifications. From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Wed Aug 24 11:12:32 2016 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465B8BC46D2 for <freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:12:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB0B1F16 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:12:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x131so202162251ite.0 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:12:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jJFLW/CB8u2/EikPzyU04BPUu8nF6VyPEdlC1jLB0Qk=; b=vN9XU8A1766nYqf+HjI9OgU5BHIGLs9hpnmcYA8WEkR5ZNcgO0JA8cejRKP1u3yl7z pEg6d93aHSUn5xQwmAzx4C+qRfj8/ZTwurMD38WEaRxbMqAoVCNWrdqCdtSrQwvBrc+7 eUrFPFjIa+CxYuPwixH1QPUcCN3q/nDdTZ0A7ys7sJAKYIbERBi8SmP4IES54oHlNl/P vmQJHBfOWqGZY5iXeij4xgdt1yhW5knQVHsmQZSYAInt6rz2XzrsTKopdLMMlPYlYwF9 BgvTPb2nqxYKkKexs5/LOrafDFUhu9TFKQLIHAr3xyJ83HF4YkcPVVnYdMM5/2qArP8o wGhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jJFLW/CB8u2/EikPzyU04BPUu8nF6VyPEdlC1jLB0Qk=; b=RR6sWuQUJxoYd2Xe2qpSohWYd/ZIIl7v6sBIck1E48fTsKMRkLtegC0t8Bk96W+fTR Uw1waK1DbgLhbfpcsFkGQmRkI18HRPes/wKGWhVmoQ/pzqAdIXyzD9OHRPGCsHoQoYeN qSseXUfRRu9rz8jY0uu3X1CvBpVjk91z9vCiOfFknnBh9jMMGUQC7wUf7vlBY/1jx2ZE r8nGfQV5GOW+8rJdZirfgwVGnoICYCw8u4zSsvbk2Y2u+QLy+0eBZQDvgzZCNzzRAICP oqCM9rB+JFLDrYYLqmo9nKovjopndBdrsVH06DCv/ZmCvCDK2mpFsIjiKUz9wCR3zDGs uMaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvVXuBC8q/SIhFCVOkuLkmWGM2oj+cnUPHyTcr6Kex2dJg9I+eMVWHihV9FdLAP5dz+y80YqKvnyY9+Dw== X-Received: by 10.36.124.141 with SMTP id a135mr3331873itd.25.1472037144754; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:12:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.95.18 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:12:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160822120215.GV22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160823110159.GU18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com> <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:12:24 +0200 Message-ID: <CAMwkeZwmhqL+OU4kWafMOw6gCZB1N3Zxw5n-TyJ57R_toGM1Eg@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 To: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>, <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:12:32 -0000 Many ports offer an option to compile with optimized cflags. See for instance http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/ffmpeg: OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=off: Use extra compiler optimizations though: SSE=on: Use SSE optimized routines It turns out that optimization options are usually off by default, so binary packages will be built without them. It is an interesting question whether they should be enabled by default. On the other hand, a generic distribution cannot assume specific processor capabilities, for instance the newest SSE or AVX, so binary distributed packages will, in general, never be as performant as specifically built ones (some software packages do runtime CPU detection though). That is one of the reasons why I use FreeBSD and why I always build my own ports. Cheers, Fernando 2016-08-24 12:07 GMT+02:00 Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it>: > Il 2016-08-23 22:55 Erich Dollansky ha scritto: > > > The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD > > 11. Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, > > witness) options enabled which make it significantly slower than > > release versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a > > desktop. It just feels much slower. > > No. > > All debugs in amd64 is off at time of BETA. > > Ok, then FreeBSD is just slower... > you missed the main point. The test was done with applications compiled > with unknown options. If you want to find out the impact of an > operating system on you application you have to use the same compiler > with the same options on all platforms. Basically, it was a compiler > test named operating system benchmark. > > OK, now I get your point. You mean he's doing an Operative System test > using an application, that is something that involve an additional > complexity. > > I get your point, but, er... I suppose he's using pkg to install the > ports or apt-get to install the packages. I mean I suppose he's lazy > enough to compare binaries vs binaries. > > Now what you're telling me is "it's not a kernel comparison, it's an > application over a kernel comparison" and I agree with you, but why > should a casual reader be interested in a kernel comparison? Or, in > general, what would you do with a kernel without an application? :) > > Sorry, I don't want to sound polemic, neither start a flame or anything, > I'm just curious... And I understand clearly the philosophical > differences between a Base BSD system and a Linux Distribution, but > again I'm a simple person, I just stick the FreeBSD cd in, install and > then do pkg install unzip. If it's slower than my colleague using Ubuntu > and doing the same thing I just feel sad :) > > So the first outcome everyone thought about was "The RC is slower > because of debugging?". No. Then the next question that pops into my > mind is "The ports are slow because the binaries are compiled with the > wrong options?". > > Thanks for your clarifications. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c>