From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 19 10:43:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143A1106564A; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:43:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A8A8FC14; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Rcagh-0006Da-77>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:43:19 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Rcagh-0005tu-3r>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:43:19 +0100 Message-ID: <4EEF1541.3020009@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:43:13 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lev@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> <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig42E820DE89A492B418570B73" X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: Adrian Chadd , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Current FreeBSD , "Samuel J. Greear" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" , Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:43:21 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig42E820DE89A492B418570B73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Samuel. > You wrote 15 =E4=E5=EA=E0=E1=F0=FF 2011 =E3., 16:32:47: >=20 >> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are >> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time= >> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this >> garbage. (Yes, I have been down this rabbit hole). > Here is one problem: we have choice from three items: >=20 > (1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" FreeBSD >=20 > (2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" Phoronix > (communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare > / meaningless, ets) >=20 > (3) Lose [potential] userbase. >=20 > You know, that these benchmarks are bad. I know. But potential (and > even some current!) user doesn't. And it seems, that these benchmarks > become popular over Internet. >=20 +1 It is not about a faky way to let a specific OS look good by any means. I'M afraid of (3), which also implies pushing more towards beeing meaningless and not anymore a alternative with a unique, remarkable criteria to be choosen as __the__ operating system of the first choice for several purposes. By the way, how such a development could look alaike is very clear when it comes to GPGPU/HPC, highly related to the availability of proper graphics card drivers, X11 development and the necessary libraries, APIs and even compilers. None of those "professionals" out here, none of those pushing the eyewhitness of bad performance into very deep-insight-talks about what could cause the problem has obviously ever negotiated with people of the "upper floor" when it comes to the choice of the OS. Within my department, the *BSD aren't even considered an option, even if they would perform best for the specified purpose (which, I regeret, is a shrinking basis now since also Linux will have ZFS). Sometimes I feel like Don Quixote, fighting against windmills. Sorry having brought up this thread and I beg for pardon for putting another scrtach into the autoerotic world of the "core". --------------enig42E820DE89A492B418570B73 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk7vFUcACgkQU6Ni+wtCKv9T5QD/SOTCNVyyf6NlJowS3L0ui56j xOjYEv9qTcg9rDKxwZYA/1i6XhGlfyysh26mCTKtLsRPIA/qoBmszBE6DHj2BVnm =kznr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig42E820DE89A492B418570B73--