Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:57:24 +1000 From: Dewayne Geraghty <dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com> To: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> Cc: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <CAGnMC6pP3jEU44MtnVXk2oHRThLA2WG1g7ZhWZ4hU-5ZKjnc4g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Unfortunately people (customers, developers, hardward vendors) make decisions on the basis of bang-for-buck. FreeBSD is consistently underperforming on benchmarks. And regardless of real-world similarity, the contrived benchmarks are the best that is used. If clang (v3.4.1 on 10.3 Stable) really is the cause, then there should be an option to use "whatever" will let the source perform at its best and reflect the stability that we have with FreeBSD. We can criticise the test results or the test regime, but unless knowledgable people respond publicly and/or in the phoronix forums, such as https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/distributions/891660-benchmarks-2-bsds-vs-7-linux-distributions Then this interpretation of reality will be fixed in decision-makers' minds and consequently the uptake (and support) of FreeBSD. As I recall Michael's testing regime has been consistently criticised (by FreeBSD folks) since he started his website, unfortunately when someone is making public statements and comparisons we really need to have a relationship with them to ensure that FreeBSD's best position is put forward.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGnMC6pP3jEU44MtnVXk2oHRThLA2WG1g7ZhWZ4hU-5ZKjnc4g>