From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 4 22:31:58 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911B11065678; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:31:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@phoronix.com) Received: from phx1.phoronix.com (173.192.77.202-static.reverse.softlayer.com [173.192.77.202]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF0C8FC14; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobile-166-205-136-164.mycingular.net ([166.205.136.164] helo=www.palm.com) by phx1.phoronix.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiZNC-0007LN-Oy; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:31:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800 From: To: "Arnaud Lacombe" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Palm webOS X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - phx1.phoronix.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - phoronix.com Message-Id: <20120104223158.911B11065678@hub.freebsd.org> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:13:51 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Adrian Chadd , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Current FreeBSD , Joe Holden , Michael Larabel , Stefan Esser , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" , Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:31:58 -0000 Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on = [1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva= riable leaves it in the default configuration 'in the way the developers or= vendor wanted it for production'. This is by rule. However, i= nvariable the community or vendor for platforms that post poor scores on be= nchmark cry foul about using the default config. 'it should be tuned,= no-one deploys an untuned system' or 'the system is configured for a diffe= rent workload'. The response from us to this comes in two forms. &nb= sp; 1) If it is the wrong workload for the platform, do a public pos= t explaining and analysing the results. Highlighting the rationale fo= r the concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with ba= rriers suffer in some write benchmarks for the sake of filesystem integrity= =2E 2) If tuning can have a material impact on the results, post a t= uning guide with step by step and rationale. Ie: educate the communit= y and users. Michael and I have had many discussions with vendors an= d communities on this. In almost all cases, the vendor has either cha= nged the default configuration or accepted the results as valid. As = a service to the community or vendor that publishes the tuning guide, Micha= el is more than willing to redo a tuned vs untuned comparison. To dat= e, the communities have never taken us up on that offer. In part, thi= s affects [2]Phoronix.com's perception in the public, but that is more of a result of a one sided d= iscussion by a party external to a particular community (with a healthy tou= ch of journalisticly pumped compare & contrast). For the FreeBSD = community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs public c= omparisons of FreeBSD against anything? Matthew -- Sent from my HP Pre3 _________________________________________________________________ On Jan 4, 2012 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:=0D > Thanks.=0D >=0D &= gt; My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchma= rk to=0D > ensure expected behaviour.=0D >=0D Why should you= have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle Server=0D install ? If = not, you should not have to tune the FreeBSD install,=0D that wouldn't b= e fair. If you tune FreeBSD, you should tune the Oracle=0D Server instal= l too. It is pretty easy to win at least 30% in=0D performance for certa= in workload by choosing the right kernel=0D configuration.=0D =0D = - Arnaud=0D =0D > The installation, execution and comparison agai= nst the benchmarks in the=0D > article is fairly simple.=0D >= =0D > Note that some tuning may not be relevant or recommended (ie: s= ome of the fs=0D > benchmarks are sensitive to barriers and other syn= chronous operations). =C2=A0I'd=0D > recommend bowing out of a benchm= ark with a 'we're going to be slower since=0D > the default configura= tion is this way for the following reason' if this is=0D > the case.= =0D >=0D > Thanks 'someone'.=0D >=0D > Matthew=0D>=0D >=0D > =C2=A0Dec 16, 2011 8:46 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:=0D >=0D > Can someone please write= up a nice, concise blog post somewhere=0D > outlining all of this?= =0D >=0D > Extra bonus points if it's a blog that is picked up = by=0D > blogs.freebsdish.org and/or some of the other BSD sites.=0D>=0D > Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at sh= iny blog=0D > sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we = lost that=0D > battle. :)=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >= Adrian=0D > _______________________________________________=0D &g= t; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list=0D > http://lists.fre= ebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance=0D > To unsubscribe, se= nd any mail to=0D > "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0D<= br> References 1. 3D"http://Phoronix.com"/ 2. 3D"http://Phoronix.com"/