From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 25 18:00:08 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 74800106564A
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:00:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@lev.vlakno.cz)
Received: from vlakno.cz (77-93-215-190.static.masterinter.net [77.93.215.190])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5FB8FC12
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:00:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@lev.vlakno.cz)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB789CB24E;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:37:00 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz
Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (lev.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id yfW3qFT141PW; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:36:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lev.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECE29CB754;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:36:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from rdivacky@localhost)
	by lev.vlakno.cz (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id mAPHavOH050522;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:36:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rdivacky)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:36:57 +0100
From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20081125173657.GA50429@freebsd.org>
References: <DE23C2B055DA4BC683BDCAA95FF7B736@multiplay.co.uk>
	<gggmbb$un6$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <gggmbb$un6$1@ger.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
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 18:00:08 -0000

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Steven Hartland wrote:
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
> > 
> > Was interesting until I saw this:-
> > 
> 
> The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of benchmarks
> they did: there is little difference between the systems. Depending on
> the details of how they did the benchmarks and how they processed the
> results (if at all), the results can even be within the margin of error
> (i.e. useless for mutual comparison except to show the systems are all
> very similar).
> 
> The benchmarks they did are mostly focused on number crunching and do
> not even touch the area of system scalability to multiple CPUs, which
> could have been easily done but they chose not to. Number crunching is a
> bad choice for system scalability measure because down to the metal, all
> systems use similar compilers and there's nothing the OS can do to

I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses...