Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb "O. Hartmann" <>:

> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is
> excused by a faulty becnhmarking.


it is important for the project to be known and I think that the
benchmarks made by Phoronix help FreeBSD to gain popularity, even they
look bad sometimes.

Furthermore, to make a benchmark is a lot of work and the results are
useful, because at the end someone will look at it and will try to
improve the results. Thank you for investing your time.

I remember that I've made some tests with different platforms i386 vs
amd64 with simple tools like "openssl speed" some time ago and got some
bad results for amd64 that no one cared to explain. These bad results
weren't reflected on Linux that I tested later for comparison. And most
people have a weird attitude to think that the tester measures wrong
instead of taking a look at it. They forget that as a FreeBSD user you
would rather see FreeBSD win over Linux.

I've seen that Phoronix made various benchmarks about FreeBSD compared
to Linux and I can tell you that _subjectively_ the benchmarks reflect
what I always thought about FreeBSD. I simply _know_ that FreeBSD is
worse in concurrency behavior, I know that it has I/O trouble, I know
that it is mostly faster emulating 3D games than Linux runs them
natively. I knew this already _before_ you published the benchmark
about the 3D performance.

I cannot see any evil intentions in these benchmarks. All I can see is
the wrong attitude _here_. If anyone thinks that Phoronix makes bad
benchmarks, they should do these benchmarks by themselves and publish
the results. As long as no one tries, Phoronix stays the best reference
for me and for everyone else.

And don't forget, benchmarks can never be objective enough and someone
will always be mad about the results. Especially, when you present them
a "versus battle".

A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well without
any further optimizations. When the distribution does not compile with
the latest compiler it's simply a bug. Why should one try to penalize
the other distribution and downgrade their binaries? When FreeBSD has a
bad default setup, there must be a reason for that. Tell me this reason
and show me that it's justified in form of some other benchmark.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to