From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 6 18:09:28 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F6E10656D1 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:09:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from radiomlodychbandytow@o2.pl) Received: from moh1-ve1.go2.pl (moh1-ve1.go2.pl [193.17.41.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51338FC13 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from moh1-ve1.go2.pl (unknown [10.0.0.131]) by moh1-ve1.go2.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B290191E9BB for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:09:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from unknown (unknown [10.0.0.142]) by moh1-ve1.go2.pl (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:09:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from host892524678.com-promis.3s.pl [89.25.246.78] by poczta.o2.pl with ESMTP id nAtGKr; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:09:14 +0100 Message-ID: <4F0738C7.4000003@o2.pl> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:09:11 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW8gbcWCb2R5Y2ggYmFuZHl0w7N3?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kabaev@gmail.com References: <20120105200331.95D63106576D@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20120105200331.95D63106576D@hub.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O2-Trust: 2, 67 X-O2-SPF: neutral X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:29:38 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-current Digest, Vol 429, Issue 8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:09:28 -0000 On 2012-01-05 21:03, kabaev@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800 > wrote: > >> > Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking >> > on [1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva configuration 'in the way the >> > developers or production'. This is by rule. However, i poor >> > scores on be 'it should be tuned, is configured for a diffe The >> > response from us to this comes in two forms.&nb 1) If it is the >> > wrong workload for the platform, do a public pos explaining and >> > analysing the results. Highlighting the rationale fo r the >> > concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with >> > ba filesystem integrity 2) If tuning can have a material impact >> > on the results, post a t uning guide with step by step and >> > rationale. Ie: educate the communit Michael and I have had many >> > discussions with vendors an on this. In almost all cases, the >> > vendor has either cha default configuration or accepted the results >> > as valid. As guide, Micha comparison. To dat offer. In part, >> > thi public, but that is more of a result of a one sided d party >> > external to a particular community (with a healthy tou >> > journalisticly pumped compare& contrast). For the FreeBSD >> > community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs >> > public c Matthew > Not really related to the discussion on hand, but the above about the > most unreadable email I am yet to read on the public mailing list. Yeah, I actually ignored it because of poor readability. -- Twoje radio