Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:20 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... Message-ID: <4AC39CB4.9050600@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr> References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> <b8592ed80909300522h49870749l8b8c35176225e34e@mail.gmail.com> <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Martin MATO wrote: > Istv=E1n a =E9crit : >=20 > have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? >=20 > you might have overlooked it. >=20 > yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) >=20 > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1]<s4mmael@gmail.com> wrote:= >=20 >=20 >=20 > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think= > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read= That's possibly true, but the huge difference in threaded I/O and memory copy can't be explained by simply leaving debug switches to ON. >=20 >=20 > the >=20 >=20 > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which i= s > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. >=20 >=20 > What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this > version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 > Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason > to be suprised. UFS2 has its benefits, even over ZFS (less memory, speed in some cases).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AC39CB4.9050600>