From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 20 00:54:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F087106566C for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:54:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petro.rossini@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D228FC12 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so7735293vbb.13 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:54:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6wjkG0rSYu3FLNFWC6xn+NgW/jJ+boOV+5VvREiwIJk=; b=o+XmxEKdVRsSb71mHoOk35NFXhKBGQbnxFCZaqpLbWmm9HvwPxTZS/Biny3x7/teKu phYvz1lIDod/5ssv19fyqrNV4n57IzULzdsyRAYtGmXCMwPAXVi5FZXPret6C2Yzi0GH FHt9+zKRoq7ZcZCDFjRwVjqIMMbbkUJ0gCSWg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.74.162 with SMTP id u2mr12547247vdv.69.1324340938039; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.152.71 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:28:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EEF3FF9.7070307@digsys.bg> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4EEF3FF9.7070307@digsys.bg> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:28:57 +1100 Message-ID: From: Petro Rossini To: Daniel Kalchev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:54:03 -0000 Hi all, just a thought here: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> As were told, Phoronix used "default" setup, not tuned. > Not really. They created some weird test environment, at least for FreeBSD > -- who knows, possibly for Linux as well. > > For example, ZFS is by no means a default file system in FreeBSD. You need > to go trough manual steps, to enable it, to build the pool, filesystems etc. .. Of course the benchmark setup and procedure is strange but.. it could be improved, I think. Have a good collection of tuning parameters for "popular cases", advertised properly so it gets hard "to miss them". I am a sysadmin and, over the years, I had to run file servers, database servers, web servers, tomcats... Well, most of the time I set it up and "it just works" because the system in question is not maxed out, not even close to it. But if I want to squeeze the last 20% out of it googling starts, and here and there I find hints how to tune the OS, the file system, what scheduler to use etc. It would be great to have a set of case studies at hand, e.g. under the /usr/share/examples directory, that describes tweaks to have a performing postgresql server, or mysql, or apache or a desktop or.. Things I find, for example, in the BSD Magazine. Maybe benchmarks become more meaningful then.. A general remark for people doing benchmarks for comparison: you need a well-informed system engineer for the systems you compare. So, if you compare a Linux system with FreeBSD, have two experienced admins that know their OS well. Regards Peter