Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:09:55 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Randy Schultz <schulra@earlham.edu> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/9/29 Randy Schultz <schulra@earlham.edu>: > > ----- "Andrew Kuriger" <a.kuriger@liquidphlux.com> spaketh thusly: > > | > | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I > | think > | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to > | read the > | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which > | is > | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame > | benchmark. > > > Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It tells us > that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. I don't think this is the case. The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned debugging options off. And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now) misleading writing about the debugging options. I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need to investigate more in this direction. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044>