Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:48:52 +0100
From:      "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx>
To:        "Jeremy Chadwick" <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "Current FreeBSD" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:        FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server
Message-ID:  <op.v6iv3qe5g7njmm@michael-think>
In-Reply-To: <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References:  <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

Am 15.12.2011, 08:32 Uhr, schrieb O. Hartmann  
<ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>:

> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>
> It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
> the benchmark. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simply far beyond
> disapointing, it is more than inacceptable and by just reading those
> benchmarks, I'd like to drop thinking of using FreeBSD even as a backend
> server in scientific and business environments. In detail, some of the
> SciMark benches look disappointing.

Why SciMark?

SciMark FreeBSD : Oracle, Mflops

Composite       884.79 :  844.03 (Faster: FreeBSD)
FFT             236.17 :  213.65 (Faster: FreeBSD)
Jacobi          970.76 :  974.84 (Faster: Oracle)
Monte Carlo     443.00 :  246.27 (Faster: FreeBSD)
Sparse Matrix  1213.64 : 1228.22 (Faster: Oracle)
Dense LU       1560.39 : 1557.18	(Faster: FreeBSD)


The threaded I/O results (Oracle outperforms FreeBSD by x10 on one, by  
x100 on another test)
or the disc TPS ( 486 : 3526 ) sure look worse and are worth looking into.


Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...



Regards,

Michael


home | help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.v6iv3qe5g7njmm>