Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:00:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Walter Hurry <walterhurry@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anatomy of Perfomance tests Message-ID: <jsk1sl$5h0$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <CAKdykDsWhygQz21R=wX8ou70Wd6GnV5SZ%2BNA8AFSDOY69-zikQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206291046510.43578@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAH3a3KVnw-CWCii1NdMAi8xuOZsvvN7Btd53xqJh4jMYhOL3Og@mail.gmail.com> <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:40:37 +0200, Julien Cigar wrote: > 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. > Unscientific, anecdotal and entirely subjective, but here's my 2c. I run both FreeBSD and Linux on the same machine in a multi-boot configuration. Each has its default disk configuration (UFS + SJ vs. Ext4 with journalling). Linux is noticeably faster, but the performance of both is satisfactory, and I prefer FreeBSD. To echo Julien, benchmarks aren't everything.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?jsk1sl$5h0$1>