(cc trimmed)
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > No, he crudely tuned the FreeBSD and Solaris boxes, while proving his
> > foregone conclusion that Linux was the cat's ass. Gee, that was a
> > surprise.
>
> Oh sorry, Linux got the same treatment as FreeBSD and Solaris.
> Only the NT box was untuned, and it beat FreeBSD BTW.
> He did "ulimit -n 8192" on all three UNIX-like systems, and...
(details snipped)
> Hey, no fair! FreeBSD and Solaris got twice as much tuning as
> the Linux box, and NT got none. But you don't like the results,
> so you say this was somehow unfair.
>
> I'd say the real winner was NT. It mostly kept up with Linux,
> trashed FreeBSD and Solaris, and didn't need any tuning to do it.
All he was doing was increasing the maximum files per process.
Without this the test wouldn't even run properly, so I certainly
wouldn't call it 'performance tuning'.
(...)
> Oh, you mean he should fairly tune them for performance?
> Let's see you tune an NT box as well as your FreeBSD box.
> Except for an open competition, benchmarking on tuned
> boxes is crap. There just isn't any way to be fair.
Agreed. However the operating systems tested all take a different
approach to what gets included or tuned in a default install. FreeBSD
(and Solaris AFAIK) both ship with rather conservative defaults.
Linux on the other hand tends to need relatively little tuning 'out of
the box', for example ext2fs can only really be compared to UFS with
softupdates (or mounted async).
I just hope nobody does any of these types of benchmarks on FreeBSD
4.3-RELEASE with IDE disks... AFAIK all the others leave IDE
write-caching turned on (not sure about Solaris there though).
This thread has probably been going on long enough...
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
