Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:30:10 -0500 From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 BETA 2 vs Opensolaris vs Ubuntu performance Message-ID: <d763ac660811250930x7f87618p502ccc88a97628a5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200811251716.mAPHGreB063704@lava.sentex.ca> References: <DE23C2B055DA4BC683BDCAA95FF7B736@multiplay.co.uk> <200811242107.mAOL7JB9058269@lava.sentex.ca> <d763ac660811250906q7be1e093yb2bf1ac6ecf52d3b@mail.gmail.com> <200811251716.mAPHGreB063704@lava.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/11/25 Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>:
> 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?
It depends, what do you think people read when making decisions? :)
Bout the only thing that could fix this is for people involved with
FreeBSD to re-do the benchmark, documenting how it was done wrong, and
reporting on the results.
Note that I didn't say "show FreeBSD is better", at least not in the
initial round.
Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660811250930x7f87618p502ccc88a97628a5>