21.12.2011, 04:28, "O. Hartmann" <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>: > On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: >>> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote: >>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved >>>> >>>> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux >>>> and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky >>>> <i...@hybrid-lab.co.uk>wrote: >>>>> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on >>>>> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative >>>>> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to >>>>> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any >>>>> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real >>>>> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two >>>>> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and >>>>> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in >>>>> making this statement, but someone has to!) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Igor M :-) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>>> "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>> Thanks for those numbers. >>> Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is >>> still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place >>> when it comes to a comparison to Linux. >>> Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance. >> Preface to my long post below: >> >> The things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work >> can you get out of Thing". This is VERY DIFFERENT from testing >> interactivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when >> Thing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how >> much interaction is lost in Thing X". >> >> The reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual, >> in an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all >> else. Nobody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld >> they go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find >> that the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed >> has gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY >> delayed, to the point where interactivity is crap. > > I whitnessed sticky, jumpy and non-responsive-for seconds FreeBSD > servers (serving homes, NFS/SAMBA and PostgreSQL database (small)). > Those "seconds" where enough to cut a ssh line. Not funny. Network > traffic droped significantly. X/Desktop makes the problem visible, > indeed. But not seeing it does not mean it isn't there. > This might be the reason why FreeBSD is so much behind when it comes to X? >
Well... Are you talking about FreeBSD being laggy with the X and other GUI staff? Well, am I so lucky to have great responsiveness and interactivity here in X with the FreeBSD? The interactiveness was one the reasons I've switched my desktop from Windows to *nix (specifically FreeBSD). >> I just want to make that clear to folks. This immense thread has been .... Regards, Vans. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"