From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 28 16:52:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C4816A41C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:52:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: from isis.sigpipe.cz (fw.sigpipe.cz [62.245.70.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFF543D49 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:51:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: by isis.sigpipe.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B9BBB1F87BEE; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:51:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:51:58 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Michael Schuh Message-ID: <20050628165158.GB51923@isis.sigpipe.cz> References: <1dbad315050621051525f4c6fc@mail.gmail.com> <200506211451.j5LEpA2W024350@lurza.secnetix.de> <20050628092126.GB48140@isis.sigpipe.cz> <1119973124.7900.20.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> <1dbad31505062809292af0d294@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1dbad31505062809292af0d294@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD MySQL still WAY slower than Linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:52:00 -0000 # michael.schuh@gmail.com / 2005-06-28 18:29:59 +0200: > 2005/6/28, Paul Mather : > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 11:21 +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > # olli@lurza.secnetix.de / 2005-06-21 16:51:10 +0200: > > > > For accurate measurements and comparisons, you have to make > > > > sure to use _exactly_ the same physical location on the > > > > disk. > > > > > > No you don't. You want to make a side-by-side comparison > > > of two products, and if one of them underperforms, it just > > > underperforms. You cannot use a poor location selection > > > strategy in the driver as an excuse for poor operation. > > > > The point people are making is that location can have a significant > > effect on performance, and so should not be dismissed out of hand. > > Yes, i know that and i agree with them. > that was the reason, why my disk is tiled on first physical Gigabyte for Swap, > and the rest for the system.... > > my target was to compare 2 Versions not 2 Os-Types like FreeBSD and Linux, > but FreeBSD and FreeBSD, in cases RELENG_4 with RELENG_5. > > so that the little difference between the different places for files, > remember i install everytime at the beginning of second Gig on disk, > should be flawlessy and not make the results so big, that the RELENG_4 > has the double of speed from RELENG_5! I can feel your pain. -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991