Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:04:41 +0200 From: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> To: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Her?= =?UTF-8?Q?rero_Carr=C3=B3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for Compilers on FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <63d785a50de7d9a4842a4d5e32b0414d@schema31.it> In-Reply-To: <CAHM0Q_Oh9%2BPzXji5t58tx6hUmM-gt_CweC%2BEGBENw23kxtzwvA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160822120215.GV22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160823110159.GU18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com> <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> <CAMwkeZwmhqL%2BOU4kWafMOw6gCZB1N3Zxw5n-TyJ57R_toGM1Eg@mail.gmail.com> <20160826132059.63c23ee5@X220.alogt.com> <20160828060601.08ea91a8@X220.alogt.com> <CAMwkeZzeQk6tL_fG7TJdFCt_4CWPADNaHy2VP4yEs3Mm2F77MA@mail.gmail.com> <20160830074656.18bfaf05@X220.alogt.com> <CAHM0Q_Oh9%2BPzXji5t58tx6hUmM-gt_CweC%2BEGBENw23kxtzwvA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Il 2016-08-30 05:51 K. Macy ha scritto: > I can't speak for the whole universe of users, but I think it's safe > to say that most users are not power users who individually configure > ports tailored to their needs. I think my experiences on Ubuntu, where > I'm definitely not a power user, are illustrative. I never compile > *anything* that has a package in an ubuntu repo and I assume that the > packages are configured when built to enable any performance options > that don't potentially cause stability issues. Similarly, on FreeBSD > most users are going to be using packages and they're going to assume > that the packages are configured to "provide the best user > experience". Consequently anyone using a package that could use OpenMP > is going to legitimately just assume that "X" is slower on FreeBSD. > And for all intents and purposes "X" _is_ slower. I second this 100%. If anyone thinks that this is not the "correct" approach then I don't see the point of the PKG project as a whole. From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Aug 30 09:35:33 2016 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFCFBC881D for <freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:35:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2E9C7CC; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:35:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id e63so152816565ith.1; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QlQ7NNKpWtWdr0AqQxPOHiknhsMCdfnGGnUpt+c5VmA=; b=03wUH7GDl1U5ocufkyr4GpyTuPbomzE7AZBG1UkfUSJiKPQmzuAfsYotOnsN3a1aEM T7i+0Vti2qlmLIQjS470MUzThezsBgSxsI5mt4meXIfaZ4mbypzJBPp2wqMcP17SWBU0 6+R+qfVW5d6qifCcoVMPPeImIf0+y9Q+WRkVKWRmQMlTtOf05V8A+0nFLLCMtWLEO4Fb ivLjD6L9ZCvilm9zDrbOA6POvTvERrd23hMgy+vD8eYm7YhN/Wj7RmL2twuIXbrM8299 OgQR07DooWkcBmMgdSIOHqZFn+X38XYZOyhiDykI29EpvGuG3S23LkNZKG0ODPBv5isU S+1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QlQ7NNKpWtWdr0AqQxPOHiknhsMCdfnGGnUpt+c5VmA=; b=iTXs3813oKchEQ3VpmoDF9q8M1sjsgeqFzUqRDGvXpndiMJMEuP4uGs+ovNdYJtSAk ITpFCtTxNuFAbbj9scLVW1g0VsYMjTIdWkR58lwCgC19SaKgGkHIAGHELD85Hr6lOPZe NAlBtRTFffYdqbrTti4s35OR3BlVXpCJU9dE6fZp3WQ7dv4ZsT7fwD47JuBf8qa2hDCj YT+FvQp4Waok+WdKltybcEr8RgJjvT0SzbVMkfzlioP+6uP2kwlpz/dy4074s55dQJS/ 7BvWyPy7arYtXOeZ74VwbT+YjYqQyNUwDSlv96eS1Kz4nvJLVOnQv3wZPbTS9qP4l+jy 5S2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOXW1+53D0SBHZJ8hx+5H7Uqk60SE2hnYY9+Q0kmSO2OmqfTFJkyILaYJPiyrshmEFg1+vlFPPPmxjgMQ== X-Received: by 10.36.7.68 with SMTP id f65mr21705492itf.39.1472549732410; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.95.18 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:35:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <63d785a50de7d9a4842a4d5e32b0414d@schema31.it> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160822120215.GV22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160823110159.GU18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com> <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> <CAMwkeZwmhqL+OU4kWafMOw6gCZB1N3Zxw5n-TyJ57R_toGM1Eg@mail.gmail.com> <20160826132059.63c23ee5@X220.alogt.com> <20160828060601.08ea91a8@X220.alogt.com> <CAMwkeZzeQk6tL_fG7TJdFCt_4CWPADNaHy2VP4yEs3Mm2F77MA@mail.gmail.com> <20160830074656.18bfaf05@X220.alogt.com> <CAHM0Q_Oh9+PzXji5t58tx6hUmM-gt_CweC+EGBENw23kxtzwvA@mail.gmail.com> <63d785a50de7d9a4842a4d5e32b0414d@schema31.it> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:35:31 +0200 Message-ID: <CAMwkeZw7e166DSYGso7o=huXexwh8VBcNSuQnG8SE_zLUX9+RQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for Compilers on FreeBSD 11 To: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> Cc: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>, <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:35:33 -0000 2016-08-30 9:04 GMT+02:00 Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it>: > > > Il 2016-08-30 05:51 K. Macy ha scritto: > > I can't speak for the whole universe of users, but I think it's safe > to say that most users are not power users who individually configure > ports tailored to their needs. I think my experiences on Ubuntu, where > I'm definitely not a power user, are illustrative. I never compile > *anything* that has a package in an ubuntu repo and I assume that the > packages are configured when built to enable any performance options > that don't potentially cause stability issues. Similarly, on FreeBSD > most users are going to be using packages and they're going to assume > that the packages are configured to "provide the best user > experience". Consequently anyone using a package that could use OpenMP > is going to legitimately just assume that "X" is slower on FreeBSD. > And for all intents and purposes "X" _is_ slower. > > > I second this 100%. > > If anyone thinks that this is not the "correct" approach then I don't see > the point of the PKG project as a whole. > I would also vote for "best performance per default". On a second thought, this would actually mean "average performance per default", because we should be conservative as to what optimizations are enabled that still work on older CPUs. I would say enabling all those compiler optimizations would be a safe bet (simply going from -O to -O2). As for pkg, if it can provide a sufficiently rich set of package options, then I'm all in. The main reason I still compile ports is the hope of gaining a bit of performance. Secondarily, compiling away features I don't need. Admittedly, this is a bit of being a control freak, but I can see servers were security is a concern who would want the bare minimum, and desktops that would want all the bells and whistles. I think that is pretty hard to achieve with a binary distribution, so I'll stick to building my own ports with poudriere and then using pkg just out of convenience.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?63d785a50de7d9a4842a4d5e32b0414d>