Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:34 -0700 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Santos <casd@myrealbox.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Message-ID: <20020828032334.GB4653@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> References: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Santos <casd@myrealbox.com>: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? > So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the > contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? Notice how the second one reveals the authors' general lack of understanding of filesystems and networking? In particular, note the fact that they didn't even realize that they were comparing a filesystem mounted sync to a filesystem mounted async. Rothman ought to have known better, but then again, he's never done any work in performance measurement except with a simulator. More on this in the archives. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020828032334.GB4653>