Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 , Michael invariable leaves

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM,   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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 , Michael invariable leaves it in the default configuration 'in the way the developers or vendor wanted

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800 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 tuned, is configur

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 platfor

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

Hi, On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, 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 tune the FreeBSD i

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 23 Dec 2011 12:25, "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 an

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 develo

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 2011-Dec-24 15:49:00 +0100, "O. Hartmann" 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 will >> be grateful.

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Linuxulator (was: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server)

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

Linuxulator (was: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server)

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 s

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux, 6.1 Server

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 doi

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 it

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

. Hartmann ; 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. He investigated

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 > bee

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. 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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote: >> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is >> currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the idea being >> to

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote: > On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 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, > >>

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 li

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 li

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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,

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote: > Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200 > schrieb Daniel Kalchev : > >> 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, >

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 con

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 wa

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 someon

FreeBSD funding [was: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1] Server

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 clear

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200 schrieb Daniel Kalchev : > 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 aspect, only stabil

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote: > 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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 peo

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 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 oth

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 corr

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 fri

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 becnhmarkin

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 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 will

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 12/22/11 10:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev 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 to later

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 unlikel

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 h

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 > imp

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 22.12.11 12:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchev 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 ignorin

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchev 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, and other facto

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 22.12.11 11:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev 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 availability comparison. Th

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev 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, the Ferr

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 cho

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 because

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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. [/q

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 hat geschrieben:Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks: > Nice page, bu

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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] > >

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 so

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Johan Hendriks 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 http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ben

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 21 December 2011 22:03, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Johan Hendriks > 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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Johan Hendriks 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 > vs Ubuntu. > [/qu

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 from

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 additio

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

21.12.2011, 04:28, "O. Hartmann" : > 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  

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 > http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchiv

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 hardware/so

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 the

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 be

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 wrote: > For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to > reproduce the benchmarks in question. > > Install PTS

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 Fr

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 S

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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. Ste

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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,

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky 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,

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 wer

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Vincent Hoffman 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 where I

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 publish

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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: > > O

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 f

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, 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. > > Check

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, 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. Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the correct checksum

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow > 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 s

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow 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 service ( > pub.allbs

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

Hi all, just a thought here: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev 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 is by no m

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 environmen

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 12/19/11 13:21, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, "Samuel J. Greear" wrote: > >> 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, _AL

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, "Samuel J. Greear" wrote: > 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 >>

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 v

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Samuel J. Greear 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 need to be fixe

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 furt

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 "fix

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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) Igno

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 ___

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 a

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 do

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

Thanks. My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs = the benchmark to ensure expected behaviour. The installation, execut= ion and comparison against the benchmarks in the article is fairly simple.<= br> Note that some tuning may not be relevant or recommended (i

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 used. Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with journaling enabled) s

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

> 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

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Pieter de Goeje spaketh thusly: -}Detailed results here: -}http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 LOL! Pretty much 2 entirely different systems, even running different screen resolutions. Tnx for this link. -} -}As usual, the phoronix benchmarks are ver

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 u

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

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 lar

  1   2   >