From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 25 17:16:57 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AF01065673
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:16:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CE58FC0A
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:16:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18])
	by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAPHGrDQ044379;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:16:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27])
	by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAPHGreB063704
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:16:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Message-Id: <200811251716.mAPHGreB063704@lava.sentex.ca>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:17:02 -0500
To: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org>
From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
In-Reply-To: <d763ac660811250906q7be1e093yb2bf1ac6ecf52d3b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <DE23C2B055DA4BC683BDCAA95FF7B736@multiplay.co.uk>
	<200811242107.mAOL7JB9058269@lava.sentex.ca>
	<d763ac660811250906q7be1e093yb2bf1ac6ecf52d3b@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 64.7.153.18
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 BETA 2 vs Opensolaris vs Ubuntu performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:16:57 -0000

At 12:06 PM 11/25/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
>when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.

True, but then again is there such a thing as a synthetic benchmark 
that would have a margin of error less than 2% while representing 
your real world application mix?

         ---Mike