From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 11:48:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E092861 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from c.kworr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCC31F1 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z5so7501270lbh.41 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9BoLY0feFzICkU9/GAHD5A2Lyegm2s0yMH7vYTSHd9U=; b=Dp3tg91ddpVynVGWM8l0zey9sjlKzBoy3zFQcz4nVZ194hyG87b07AFHFEeGX+2k0I XoG3CNbUvJSCnIq2DPxEhrqNYlx0QJ83Q9K2UIgOO1gywAnQOMAJPh2GIkEH8v1QR1Cs ZlAs+hRqWqS9ssfpbkx+0WTVzD/p9Y7DBx59j1CYCGWtTmBjaiCn18v95kkGW3lIgy2Z OWWQX+XPzJX+JcWmhOuzCMK9nd+PRMliUmihAWF72OPnsk/H4pDILiKlYqFsNNIOplJU SSS1KaYauqO9a2uGhNfVKxWoZT5m15bnzU0UecO7penzt8sv87sob01h+nUpqoO+Jv6W 9qIA== X-Received: by 10.112.89.195 with SMTP id bq3mr16339893lbb.19.1369741694657; Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.128] (mau.donbass.com. [92.242.127.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rr7sm8309816lbb.0.2013.05.28.04.48.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A4997C.4030708@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:48:12 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "O. Hartmann" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:08:05 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:22 -0000 28.05.2013 10:08, O. Hartmann: > Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests > comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 > > It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the > gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux > distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at > Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB > performance between each system). > > Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are > orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those > from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems. > > Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a > very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS > isn't really needed. Not a point for me. ZFS gives me confidence in data consistency. > Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is > the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I > try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the > setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and > measure. > > But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our > department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and > in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several > FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD > 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels). ... (Looking through all benchmarks for some real world scenarios) Oh, we are better at Apache. And why there are no numbers next to PgSQL? DragonFly definitely would kick some ass at pgbench. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.