Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:19:07 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking Message-ID: <4075352B.2060709@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <20040408011857.GR23860@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <40745C07.6030501@fer.hr> <20040408011857.GR23860@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Since I received mostly negative comments on the whole thing, I'm considering doing myself a favour and taking it off public access, although I *still* think that the benchmark is valid under its goal, and I will defend it as such. But 'm willing to learn :) Just for argument sake, if I ever do something like this again, what should I do to make it better? So far, I've got: - Increase the number of files for bonnie++ (I agree) - Don't use bonnie++ at all (I disagree - what else to use?) - Enforce same partition/slice size for NetBSD (I agree) Until such opportunity, are there any suggestions about what to do what the current article? - Remove bonnie++ filesystem results? - Remove NetBSD from the article? What suprises me that nobody's disputing bytebench - I thought its results were far more interesting... :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4075352B.2060709>