From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 7 07:27:52 2005 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 E57F316A4CE for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:27:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp804.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp804.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.183]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C046F43D49 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:27:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from richard@howitsdone.net) Received: from unknown (HELO gigaping.gigaping) (cadwalad3r@sbcglobal.net@69.153.226.226 with plain) by smtp804.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2005 07:27:52 -0000 From: Richard Cadwalader To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:26:38 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <20050106115726.52478.qmail@web26608.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <41DD6737.4090804@criticalmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <41DD6737.4090804@criticalmagic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501070126.40256.richard@howitsdone.net> Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:27:53 -0000 On Thursday 06 January 2005 10:28, Richard Coleman wrote: > Robert Ryan wrote: > > Fellow FreeBSD developers, > > > > I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable. > > > > Check this out: http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/ > > Well, even though this link was submitted by a troll, the benchmarks are > actually pretty interesting and worth reading. Just keep the following > in mind: > > 1. Although NetBSD did perform better on many of the benchmarks (kudos > to them), but the difference is usually not dramatic. > 2. The benchmarks are strictly uniprocessor benchmarks. > 3. The author does admit at the end of the article that NetBSD still > uses a big, giant lock around the kernel and the benchmarks might be > very different on a multiprocessor system. > 4. The benchmarks are only NetBSD versus FreeBSD, so it's hard to judge > where the performance of each system fits in the grand scheme of things. > It could be that both systems are performing very well. The > benchmarks need to include at least one non-BSD system (usually Linux) > in order to get some perspective. > 5. It would have been nice if FreeBSD 4.10 and NetBSD 1.6.2 were also > include, so we could see the relative progress (or lack) of each system. > > But it's worth reading. Data is always a good thing. Just don't get > hung up on them. Hopefully, it will inspire more comprehensive tests. > > Richard Coleman > rcoleman@criticalmagic.com > _______________________________________________ > 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" So how does FreeBSD usually fit into the grand scheme of things? I'm not trolling, really, I love FreeBSD...I'm just new and curious... -- Richard Cadwalader