Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:48:53 -0700 From: Oleg Moskalenko <oleg.moskalenko@citrix.com> To: 'Doug Barton' <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT Message-ID: <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A3012CA28AEB6D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> In-Reply-To: <4FEAA599.9070107@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FEAA280.2070705@FreeBSD.org> <4FEAA599.9070107@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 PM > To: Gabor Kovesdan > Cc: FreeBSD Current; Oleg Moskalenko > Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT >=20 > On 06/26/2012 11:04 PM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > as I announced before, the default sort in -CURRENT has been changed > > to BSD sort. >=20 > Has this been performance tested vs. the old one? If so, where are the > results? Of course it was performance-tested. As this is a totally different program= with different=20 algorithms, it has totally different performance profile on different tests= , comparing to the old sort. In the default compilation mode (single thread s= ort)=20 the performance is on the same level as the old sort (sometimes faster, som= etimes slower).=20 The new sort is often significantly faster in numeric sort tests. In "exper= imental" multi-threading=20 mode, the new sort is much faster than the old sort on multi-CPU systems. The sort speed comparison is not actually fair because the old sort cuts so= me corners and=20 has a number of bugs. The concrete figures do not have much sense because you change the sort fil= e and you get a totally=20 different performance ratio.=20 >=20 > > Since the import, the reported minor bugs have been > > fixed and BSD sort has passed the portbuild test. If you encounter > any > > problems or incompatibility with the old GNU version, please report. >=20 > Has this been thoroughly regression-tested against the old version, > option by option? Of course we have the regression tests. We have an overnight test that runs= through=20 probably 17 millions various sort option combinations. But we actually had= to compare=20 the new sort against a fresh GNU sort implementation (version 8.15), becaus= e the old BSD GNU sort=20 is very buggy and testing against the old GNU sort has no sense. Oleg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A3012CA28AEB6D>