From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 8 04:22:45 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 BC33416A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 04:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinus.cc.fer.hr (pinus.cc.fer.hr [161.53.73.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029E943D46 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 04:22:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from fer.hr (lara.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.113]) by pinus.cc.fer.hr (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i38BNwsM024184 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:23:59 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <4075352B.2060709@fer.hr> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:19:07 +0200 From: Ivan Voras User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <40745C07.6030501@fer.hr> <20040408011857.GR23860@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20040408011857.GR23860@wantadilla.lemis.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: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:22:45 -0000 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... :)