On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 03:52:06PM -0800, Matthew Tippett wrote:
Hmm... No sure what happened there again. What I sent (pulled from my
Sent folder...
===
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
Phoronix.com http://Phoronix.com, Michael invariable leaves it in the
On 01/04/2012 20:52, Matthew Tippett wrote:
As a service to the community or vendor that publishes the tuning
guide, Michael is more than willing to redo a tuned vs untuned
comparison. To date, the communities have never taken us up on that
offer. In part, this affects Phoronix.com
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, matt...@phoronix.com wrote:
Thanks.
My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
ensure expected behaviour.
Why should you have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle Server
install ? If not, you should not have to
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
[1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva= riable leaves it in the default
configuration 'in the way the developers or= vendor wanted it for
production'. This is by rule.
However, i= nvariable the community or vendor for
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800
matt...@phoronix.com wrote:
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking
on[1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva configuration 'in the way the
developers or production'. This is by rule. However, i poor
scores on be 'it should be
Hmm... No sure what happened there again. What I sent (pulled from my
Sent folder...
===
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
Phoronix.com http://Phoronix.com, Michael invariable leaves it in the
default configuration 'in the way the developers or vendor wanted it
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, matt...@phoronix.com wrote:
Thanks.
My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
ensure expected behaviour.
Why should you have to tune anything
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:04:31PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
There maybe serious reasons having the Linuxulator, i do not know. But
if not, why spending rare developer resources on that?
This is a classical misunderstanding of the FreeBSD development model.
There is no staff standing around
On 2011-Dec-24 15:49:00 +0100, O. Hartmann ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de
wrote:
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
Here is now it works:
If you see an problem and have a solution: go fix it. Many will be
grateful.
If you can't fix it, but have an idea how to fix it, share it. May
Am 12/30/11 10:07, schrieb Mark Linimon:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:04:31PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
There maybe serious reasons having the Linuxulator, i do not know. But
if not, why spending rare developer resources on that?
This is a classical misunderstanding of the FreeBSD development
On 23 Dec 2011 12:25, O. Hartmann ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de
wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup, bad
performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still stuck
Hi,
you assume in your comment that development time wasted in the linuxulator is
time lost for other development. This assumption could be valid for a
commercially developed OS, but is wrong for FreeBSD. I tell this as a person
who spend a lot of time with the linux ports, mentored a GSoC
Am 12/28/11 15:24, schrieb Alexander Leidinger:
Hi,
you assume in your comment that development time wasted in the
linuxulator is time lost for other development. This assumption could be
valid for a commercially developed OS, but is wrong for FreeBSD. I tell
this as a person who spend a
Well, the post is OT, but I need some vent.
On 2011-12-19 18:34, dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
For example, few checkboxes with common sysctl tuning would be perfect,
even if they would be marked as Experimental, or not recommended.
By following this, we push FreeBSD into the Linux style of doing
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still
On 12/23/11 12:44, Alexander Best wrote:
[...]
Many suggested that the Linux binaries be run via the FreeBSD Linux
emulation. Unchanged.
There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit.
plus the current emulation layer is far from complete. a lot of stuff hasn't
been
; O.
Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de; dan...@freebsd.org
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem
On 12/24/2011 12:04, O. Hartmann wrote:
There maybe serious reasons having the Linuxulator, i do not know. But
if not, why spending rare developer resources on that? As far as I'm
concerned, the only real reason having the Linuxulator is some stuff
from Adobe for desktop systems, Flash. That's
On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
care-taking engineer taking care in a more user
On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
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.
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still
stuck with this problem and more and more
On Fri Dec 23 11, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
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.
The -RELEASE things is just a
On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
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
On 12/23/11 10:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg:
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
tested at that time.
Hi Daniel,
obviously performance is not a quality
I have slightly reordered your email in my reply, in order to put the
most important item last.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:01:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
I'm still with the system, although I desperately need scientific grade
compilers or GPGPU support.
Your use-case, while valid, is
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other
place. Now... in case someone here is
On 23.12.11 16:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
I thought that the D in FreeBSD stands for distribution. Yes, it's
ok that it compiles with LLVM. Does it also run faster in benchmarks?
It does. From a language perspective. It is a distribution, because at
the times BSD was developed, it was not
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some
On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg:
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
tested at that time.
Hi
On 12/23/11 16:24, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander
On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
snip
There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is
currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the
Hi,
I extended the gcc part a little bit to make it a little bit more clear when it
matters.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Send via an Android device, please forgive brevity and typographic and spelling
errors.
Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org hat geschrieben:Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb
Johan
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
4.7 then the results are unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about
FreeBSD vs Ubuntu.
My thoughts about benchmarking - don't forget, it's the way to get at least
estimate on how your system will behave in given circumstances.
When testers measured new videocard, they tested few factors, like FPS in
modern games, pixel/texture fillrate, and whatever they do there else.
That's
On 22.12.11 11:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
If you tune up FreeBSD to use the GCC 4.7 compiler, or downgrade linux
to 4.2.1, then that will tell me nothing about FreeBSD vs Linux.
The gcc version distributed with FreeBSD was
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
On 22.12.11 00:33, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
Using the same argument one can say that Ferrari F430 vs Toyota Prius is a
meaningless comparison because the under-the-hood equipment is different.
Of course, it is meaningless,
On 22.12.11 11:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchevdan...@digsys.bg wrote:
Of course, it is meaningless, the Ferrari will lose big time in the fuel
consumption comparison! I believe it will also lose the price comparison as
well. Not to speak the
On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As for how fast to get from point A to point B. If you observe speed limits,
that will depend only on the pilot, no? :)
Both cars are sufficiently faster than the imposed speed limits.
You are ignoring acceleration, handling,
On 22.12.11 12:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchevdan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As for how fast to get from point A to point B. If you observe speed limits,
that will depend only on the pilot, no? :)
Both cars are sufficiently faster than the imposed speed limits.
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free
to go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel
free to go to
On 12/22/11 10:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
4.7 then the results are unlikely to tell you
On 12/22/11 10:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
[...]
Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure how
different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several
measurable metrics, that you will use
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
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
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:29:25PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
This also interested me:
* Linux system crashed
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg8.html
* OpenIndiana system crashed same way as Linux system
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:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free to
go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some
Alexander Leidinger schreef:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free to
go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
improved. The page is far
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Johan Hendriks joh.hendr...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC 4.7
then the results are unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about FreeBSD
On 21 December 2011 22:03, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Johan Hendriks joh.hendr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC 4.7
then the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Johan Hendriks joh.hendr...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexander Leidinger schreef:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other
place. Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking,
feel free to go to
On 21.12.11 23:49, Johan Hendriks wrote:
I my opinion, you benchmark the latest release of Linux, FreeBSD,
Solaris, Windows and whatever OS you want to compare!
There is no 'general benchmark' as there is not one single tasks that
all computers are used for.
If you want to benchmark
On 22.12.11 00:33, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
Using the same argument one can say that Ferrari F430 vs Toyota Prius
is a meaningless comparison because the under-the-hood equipment is
different.
Of course, it is meaningless, the Ferrari will lose big time in the
fuel consumption comparison! I
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
4.7 then the results are unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about
FreeBSD vs Ubuntu.
[/quote]
That is
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow yeren...@gmail.com wrote:
FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow yeren...@gmail.com
wrote:
FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
found
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
from.
Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
from.
On 20.12.11 11:42, Garrett Cooper wrote:
As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream
source says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I
get my images from.
Relying on checksums that are published on the same web site where you
download the files
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
On 19/12/2011, at 22:28, Petro Rossini wrote:
Hi all,
just a thought here:
On
On 20/12/2011 10:39, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 20.12.11 11:42, Garrett Cooper wrote:
As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream
source says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I
get my images from.
Relying on checksums that are published on the
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
On 20/12/2011 10:39, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 20.12.11 11:42, Garrett Cooper wrote:
As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream
source says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Chiron IO io.chi...@gmail.com 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
http://wiki.freebsd.org/DefaultDebuggingKnobs
I am not aware of any linux distribution that comes with debug enabled by
default, even on RC releases.
It seems that this approach (debug by default) is welcome to help solve
problems that might appear, but I would be happy if these benchmarks
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,
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
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
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
Bottom post this time to follow Oliver :).
On 12/20/2011 02:54 PM, 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
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,
Is there a specific version of the test suite that should be used, to
compare against the published results?
Adrian
On 20 December 2011 17:18, Matthew Tippett matt...@phoronix.com wrote:
For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in
For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in question.
Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
Run the benchmark against those used in the article
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
You will
The benchmarks themselves are versioned. So in general most of the
av= ailable versions of PTS itself should be fine. PTS can be
considered = an execution shell that doesn't affect the benchmark
itself.
Note th= at you'll download a pile of the benchmarks, build and
install
Any version is fine that's PTS 3.0 or newer in terms of being
compatible, since the test profiles are versioned separately and
automatically fetched to match the result file. However, I'd recommended
the newest (PTS 3.6) as it contains the best FreeBSD support at present
in terms of
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 this
garbage. (Yes, I have been down
On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
(communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 16 декабря 2011 г., 20:43:27:
Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we lost that
battle. :)
My thoughts exactly.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org
Hello, Matthew.
You wrote 19 декабря 2011 г., 13:13:09:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
(communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
/ meaningless, ets)
(2a) Ignore Phoronix,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:09AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
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
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
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
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
FreeBSD actually does _BETTER_ (subjectively) in this test than the
Linux system when you look at what is really going on. FreeBSD is
favoring writes, which is _GOOD_. FreeBSD does not need to be fixed,
the benchmarks
IMHO, no offence, as always.
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
So? Is average user will tune it after setup? No, he'll get same defaults,
and would expect same performance as in tests, and he probably get it.
The problem of FreeBSD is not it's default settings, some kind of
On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
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
On 12/19/11 13:21, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly
I have already canceled few replies to this thread, but...
On 19.12.11 15:16, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
IMHO, no offence, as always.
I feel obliged to include the same disclaimer :-)
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
Not really. They created some weird test
Hi all,
just a thought here:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
Not really. They created some weird test environment, at least for FreeBSD
-- who knows, possibly for Linux as well.
For example, ZFS
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
michael.lara...@phoronix.com:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same hardware was
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
michael.lara...@phoronix.com:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers,
Am 15.12.2011, 11:55 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
michael.lara...@phoronix.com:
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
michael.lara...@phoronix.com:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on
Hi, all,
Am 15.12.2011 um 12:18 schrieb Michael Ross:
Following Steven Hartlands' suggestion,
from one of my machines:
/usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#sysctl -a | egrep hw.vendor|hw.product
/usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#dmidecode -t 2
# dmidecode 2.11
SMBIOS 2.6 present.
Handle
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:55:16AM -0600, Michael Larabel wrote:
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
michael.lara...@phoronix.com:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:32:47AM -0700, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
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
On 12/15/2011 08:26 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
