Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:41:54 +0100 From: "Jesper Louis Andersen" <jlouis@mongers.org> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> Cc: Igor Shmukler <shmukler@mail.ru> Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 in server performance Message-ID: <20050106114154.GB30825@miracle.mongers.org> In-Reply-To: <20050106031847.GA22306@technokratis.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0501060218130.23976@rfhpc8317> <E1CmNlA-0008C3-00.shmukler-mail-ru@f7.mail.ru> <20050106031847.GA22306@technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Bosko Milekic (bmilekic@technokratis.com): > Not to mention, FreeBSD5 has yet to be micro-optimized. How about some > scalability benchmarks on multi-CPU machines? The original post > (particular since it was sent to -advocacy) is FUD. How many CPU's do you have in mind? I would not expect FreeBSD to outperform NetBSD by much for a 2-CPU box with a typical server workload with typical programs that does not even know to take advantage of a ''superior'' threading model. For a computer with 4-8 CPU's the advantage might be much bigger, but I have not yet seen any benchmarks targetting computers with that number of CPUs. Partially because people does not yet have access to such computers, partially because most people doesn't care about that kind of scalability. But this is speculation. I would like to see perfarmonce benchmarks for your scenario as well. I disagree that the original post is entirely FUD. While the conclusion is subjective, fact is that at the particular mix of microbenchmarks shows NetBSD faster than FreeBSD. I am wondering if that is the price you pay on single-cpu boxes to gain speed at the SMP boxes. And if this is true the question becomes if fine-grained locking is worth the implementation time when most computers are still single-cpu (Yes, I know this can change rapidly with the newer CPU types). -- jlouis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050106114154.GB30825>