Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:28:47 -0200 From: Chiron IO <io.chir0n@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: <28E4047A-356A-4CCE-A134-9B24A7444806@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAExkqpc4yQxy8Nr0fWBpHPAFAp3UJY%2BN9YWXLfVL-_rpe_unMQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAJ-VmomWnAvsVPcK0mfFECvFw_FKcja1m3NE9ue=TOkF%2Bx14Xg@mail.gmail.com> <CANY-Wm8jbtr3tiwdGQMDx8SVZKEBspGwTV7Q0wziYWsV%2Bf3BSQ@mail.gmail.com> <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> <CANY-Wm9-JTN0gvjoRv4XFMDaweoPSoZ4erTUto3Z-s1LxqGzhg@mail.gmail.com> <CABTjkKmRQ-hc2kKpCCrj4AmChXA59ErXeTHnt0oJSTEBFi-apw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPJF9wmgMi6XJrtETmHcv%2BMHP22V4xKkixTqxQYaej6RyViPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEF3FF9.7070307@digsys.bg> <CAExkqpc4yQxy8Nr0fWBpHPAFAp3UJY%2BN9YWXLfVL-_rpe_unMQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guys, I have a question about these benchmarks. Why worry about that if the CURRENT comes with debug enabled by default? = http://joaobarros.blogspot.com/2005/07/freebsd-how-to-turn-off-debug-optio= ns.html On 19/12/2011, at 22:28, Petro Rossini wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > just a thought here: >=20 > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> = 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > .. >=20 > Of course the benchmark setup and procedure is strange but.. >=20 > it could be improved, I think. >=20 > Have a good collection of tuning parameters for "popular cases", > advertised properly so it gets hard "to miss them". >=20 > I am a sysadmin and, over the years, I had to run file servers, > database servers, web servers, tomcats... >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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.. >=20 > Things I find, for example, in the BSD Magazine. >=20 > Maybe benchmarks become more meaningful then.. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards > Peter > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28E4047A-356A-4CCE-A134-9B24A7444806>