From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 29 09:01:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA221065672 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:01:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fred.morcos@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15BD8FC1A for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhm11 with SMTP id hm11so605041wib.13 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:01:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=pJOz96cfd+NpdjOAhzQ7/bWrFn67XPLF2h0xGuXovfs=; b=Y9gBTIE8rX/3lr4wktt1XecldNl2nyZ0r4kIHGlijD9fhC7tqv6YUtQQYJCY9hTdvz h2zn7wTYhsUADnZsAs8i1RF1OFlsJUHZo7XoDw0kq8I/6/VO4sgFM4KOb6cKgQT7fXgV 2oRUM9ty7Q6WZgetnyhk9WqoY0Lvxfh0l3HVJNd5nxmqH/Oe2MktyKLZW6dPAMjq41i1 rx2sdhP8RZ/Vw1xHYYNPzBNf8FVeQpCwAeZ+prSkzoFlMmd9iIrKx1vJKiK64vOWU4IG TDw9HU7VTldtjfSX6sdEHRg+uwR7bCUWbuxq4K8WrUqz+2zonUmpAE633JQEb7MGg9iS 03XQ== Received: by 10.180.102.228 with SMTP id fr4mr2966478wib.6.1340960478673; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:01:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.52.4 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Fred Morcos Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:00:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Siju George , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anatomy of Perfomance tests X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:01:20 -0000 On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > Most probably all filesystems were used with defaults. > > MAYBE softupdates, but not even sure for this. Compare this to linux which > is async-like. Comparing with UFS+async would be more fair. > > Still - FreeBSD default MAXPHYS in param.h is far too low. i change it to > 2048*1024 (default is 128*1024) and improvement on handling large files is > huge. I run that setting everywhere. No problems. > > I already talked about it on forum but was ignored. > > As for scientific processing it should not depend much from OS at all, but > for sure it depends on crappy compiler that Juniper wanted... > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" I would not worry too much about what this guy says. Judging from his interpretations of the plots, he doesn't seem to know much about the benchmarks he is running and why they behave that way on the different systems. I think he just runs and publishes everything that says benchmark on it, without truly understanding what's going on or even going through the effort of providing fair comparisons. That said, I think that the Linux kernel performs better simply due to wider adoption (larger developer base, wider set of use-cases, etc) and thus a higher chance of getting performance improvements.