From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 29 11:01:00 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 C0FA5106564A for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:01:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A728FC08 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SkYwa-0006HG-5s for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:00:56 +0200 Received: from cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.21.186.149]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:00:56 +0200 Received: from walterhurry by cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:00:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Walter Hurry Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <4FED7815.10102@ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 30dc37b master) 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 11:01:00 -0000 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 >> 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.