From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 29 09:41:48 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 CB43A106564A for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:41:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jcigar@ulb.ac.be) Received: from mxin.ulb.ac.be (mxin.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.112]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543678FC19 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:41:48 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAOh27U+kD30E/2dsb2JhbAANOIVatA4BAQEEAQEBICsgEAsLGAkhAgIPAhYBCSYOBQIEAQEBARkEh3WmAopRiQSLNxqCVIIKgRIDjkeBH4MjgzuEMY0hgV0 Received: from bebif01.ulb.ac.be (HELO [10.0.0.194]) ([164.15.125.4]) by smtp.ulb.ac.be with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2012 11:40:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:40:37 +0200 From: Julien Cigar Organization: Belgian Biodiversity Platform User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120503 Thunderbird/12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030502030902090407050408" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 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 09:41:48 -0000 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 > 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--