From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 23 21:23: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (unknown [205.253.70.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1391D14CAA for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:22:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by psf.Pinyon.ORG (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA94722; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:21:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Message-Id: <199906240421.VAA94722@psf.Pinyon.ORG> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Julian Elischer Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:48:54 MST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:21:10 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG %Basically there are some applications and benchmarks for which FreeBSD uh, "benchmarks" only, until evidence is produced otherwise. Tuning for benchmarks has been around a long long time. People get worked up about this because the people who give out the money to buy the systems use benchmarks to decide whom to give the money to. It's really, really stupid to rely on generic benchmarks. But people do, anyway. So I guess whistle and some others should invest in tuning for the benchmarks. Like jupiter, eh? Or maybe Apple. But for the rest, I wouldn't panic. In fact, there's probably some interesting kernel architecture issues here. Let's hear them, now! If I wanted secrecy about architecture details there's a shitload less time consuming ways to do it then follow FreeBSD. Russell To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message