From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 08:35:19 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A49A1065676 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:35:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.84]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 635228FC0C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2011 08:35:19 -0000 Received: from [98.136.185.45] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2011 08:33:19 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2011 08:33:19 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 24356.85366.bm@smtp106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 48O7UBMVM1lYAcOzVhJqu9NZGMDB.8sXUJh5PxM3_BZtCRf sqZJ8f.hKb2Nq8Ppe4fd654RXbAMvFI5BCQD_c9rt3WZUNE41Rq2ZEtziaQu IL7GnpViRMBz6wvueGfn4.TMRTpmJO27Y0ehpGBp7LYFQLgMFiESY9iKw0qc G0ksPGdWrphyJ0o5R90Ml6PDak86E4iwVs4y8YHIh7s9P9Qtil4Ncj6RlOVm h.cIkizV.wizjyuR0Aof5_mDgtiGVWBzncpM.TijcBqwppRC126VGka0epUc PmGPOFfUG5deYf9w6gYsHEAWSuxgY0kOjAC0e4MWo_Qj_sWxrjjDKa6RQ9M3 XtagHL.1sD4eu_uSY8YR1S5LDboug4X5h0uE6GHr0ghgFMMHMY9fnnmp2AJB h7jBQeZw99O5_agi9cq7EHCcKdh_zHC.L_y1s6J2eU7FxdgXu4wdefBD2Y6e 2gOXN34ZAbZLKNG9ZTjxGB.WitorJvyQH7OwoFwhpsuyKMTQzvlN222Tu3RG uf9ejxCojsLJEcof98afnuwlEmzTzrAf1ocSJ9js- X-Yahoo-SMTP: iDf2N9.swBDAhYEh7VHfpgq0lnq. Received: from [192.168.119.20] (se@81.173.157.6 with plain) by smtp106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2011 00:33:18 -0800 PST Message-ID: <4EEB024E.9010101@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:33:18 +0100 From: Stefan Esser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EEAE003.1040005@zoho.com> In-Reply-To: <4EEAE003.1040005@zoho.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:35:19 -0000 Am 16.12.2011 07:06, schrieb Alex Kuster: > On 12/16/2011 02:41, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann >> wrote: >>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today: >>> >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA >>> >> it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is >> using a kernel + compiler almost 2 years old, it still manages to >> out-perform the bleeding edge FreeBSD :-) No, there was no measurement of Oracle Linux 6.1 compared to a normal FreeBSD installation as has already pointed out by quite a number of people. >> Now, from what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that a lot of >> people are still in abnegation... >> >> my 0.2c, >> - Arnaud > > This smells like flamebait ... > Because everyone with a little love or knowledge about benchmarking > would realize that the benchmark is all wrong, and not only that ... > they say that the benchmark tests defaults and ZFS, afaik is far from > being a default. Yes, and a default installation of FreeBSD (with UFS2 and SU or SU+J) would have allowed to run the *exact same* binaries used in the Linux test by just recursively copying the Linux root to /compat/linux (and loading linux.ko, of course). There is some emulation overhead (more pathes are searched, for example), but FreeBSD compared well under realistic loads in prior tests. The problem with a number of the tests (obviously measuring the amount of dirty buffers allowed by the kernel before a generating program is throttled back to prevent loosing valuable buffer cache contents) does also lead to very misleading results (since they do not measure a steady state load situation common on a server). We have gone through this topic a number of times (as a search for Phoronix on the mail archives schould be able to reveal). There may be performance advantages for either OS compared to the other, but most of the Phoronix tests are totally unsuitable to find them, even when performed under fair conditions (e.g. same compiler version, comparable file system). STefan