Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:40:37 +0200 From: Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anatomy of Perfomance tests Message-ID: <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <CAH3a3KVnw-CWCii1NdMAi8xuOZsvvN7Btd53xqJh4jMYhOL3Og@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKdykDsWhygQz21R=wX8ou70Wd6GnV5SZ%2BNA8AFSDOY69-zikQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206291046510.43578@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAH3a3KVnw-CWCii1NdMAi8xuOZsvvN7Btd53xqJh4jMYhOL3Og@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030502030902090407050408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/29/2012 11:00, Fred Morcos wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Wojciech Puchar > <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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. Note that stability matters too. I remembered a bench on PostgreSQL where Linux was faster, but at some point the machine had to be rebooted because it became unresponsive. > _______________________________________________ > 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" -- No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. --------------030502030902090407050408--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FED7815.10102>