> Looks like a few specific benchmarks that DragonFly aimed to do well at that
> we were unawares of.
>
Unawares of?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/08/03/06/1313218/freebsd-70-bests-linux-in-smp-performance
The FreeBSD project made hay with sysbench and pgbench not that long ago.
> Not sure, didn
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 wrote:
> Interestingly,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Chiron IO wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I have a question about these benchmarks.
>
> Why worry about that if the CURRENT comes with debug enabled by default?
>
>
> http://joaobarros.blogspot.com/2005/07/freebsd-how-to-turn-off-debug-options.html
>
>
>
In the real world prob
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
> Hello, Samuel.
> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>
>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating
> Well, the only way it's going to get fixed is if someone sits down,
> replicates it, and starts to document exactly what it is that these
> benchmarks are/aren't doing.
>
I think you will find that investigation is largely a waste of time,
because not only are some of these benchmarks just downr
On Monday 21 January 2002 10:20 pm, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> I've got a machine with 4G of RAM, and I'm trying to test all the RAM out
> to make sure it's okay.
>
> I've tried doing buildworlds, but never end up using more than 1G of RAM on
> cache, etc.
>
> I've got -current and -stable on it, a
