From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 7 16:22:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C083316A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geri.cc.fer.hr (geri.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BD543D46 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:22:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from fer.hr (geri.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.107]) by geri.cc.fer.hr (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i37NIacj056145 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:18:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Message-ID: <40748CD0.5020204@fer.hr> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:20:48 +0200 From: Ivan Voras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <40745C07.6030501@fer.hr> <877jwre672.fsf@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <877jwre672.fsf@strauser.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Benchmarking X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:22:47 -0000 Kirk Strauser wrote: > Prepare to be flamed (not by me, but in general). The tests are littered > with comments like: > > Missing data in the above table signifies operations that were too fast > to measure correctly by the bonnie++ program. > People will wonder why you chose not to increase the number of files being > tested so as to get meaningful results. Viewers are left looking at a > mostly-empty table where the BSDs dominate the results by a large margin, > but are told: Id really didn't occurr to me until it was already to late (too many systems were benchmarked already). > Linux clearly wins the IO throughput test, having a score upto about > 130% better than nearest BSD, either by having a better SCSI driver, or > because the system itself is just faster. > > Since you didn't *publish* any results were Linux won, I'll have to assume > that your private data demonstrated a different conclusion. And what do you call the results of bonnie++ sequential IO output test (in the table)? :) This is what I was reffering to in the cited text. > You describe your custom FreeBSD 5 kernel as keeping the WITNESS options. Really? Where do I say that? The RELEASE kernel of FreeBSD are without WITNESS, and my CUSTOM kernel was based on it. The options I gave were the differences between CUSTOM and GENERIC. > In NetBSD, you say: > > Because of my clumsiness with the installer, or the presence of some > bugs regarding modifying a FreeBSD partition setup, I wasn"t able to > partition the drive as intended, but instead the default partition > scheme was used. > > Full stop. End of test. You're now comparing bananas to pencils. I admit NetBSD was sort of an afterthought, but do you really mean that the physical position and of the /bench slice would affect the tests in significant ways? Even if the bonnie++ results are completely invalid, other results remain valid. > Basically, you ran some tests on divergent systems and got some results, but > that's about the only conclusion I was able to get from it. You're perfectly entitled to :)