On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
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.
FWIW, somebody pointed out (and I overlooked) that the test ran RSETs
instead of real mail messages. Excuse me, but
Wes Peters writes:
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
No, no, no. You have to tune the systems EQUALLY. Um, how? :-)
What if some random admin was picked to tune the systems?
Maybe he is a Solaris admin, but he honestly tries to tune
the other systems. Sure you wouldn't complain that he did a
bad
(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
And this is where ? I just tried it and received the error message of no manual
entry for tuning.
Cheers,
Mark
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:43:10 -0400, Brent Verner said:
On 15 Jun 2001 at 00:38 (-0500), Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
| Mike Silbersack wrote:
|
|
| Matt's
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:45:57AM -0500, Mark Sergeant wrote:
And this is where ? I just tried it and received the error message of no manual
entry for tuning.
It was added to the system on 2001-05-27 so if your system is older
than that you won't have it.
Cheers,
Mark
On Fri, 15
Ahh ok,
Well I am going to wait a little while before make worlding as it seems
a few too many things I use are broken for now.
Cheers,
Mark
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:14:57 +0200, Erik Trulsson said:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:45:57AM -0500, Mark Sergeant wrote:
And this is where ?
Devin Butterfield wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2001 9:13, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Rajappa Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010614 22:23] wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly
for these people?
Because
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Here is a repeat of my post to -advocacy:
-- Terry
The article is meaningless.
Too bad they titled it Which OS is Fastest for
Mike Silbersack wrote:
Rather than a tuned configuration, what would be useful is
a script that would evaluate a system and give tuning hints.
This might be simple for someone familiar with shell scripting
or perl. It could do something like:
[ ... Eliza program for FreeBSD ... ]
Doing
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 02:09:19AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Mike Silbersack wrote:
Rather than a tuned configuration, what would be useful is
a script that would evaluate a system and give tuning hints.
This might be simple for someone familiar with shell scripting
or perl. It could
Terry Lambert wrote:
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Here is a repeat of my post to -advocacy:
-- Terry
The article is meaningless.
Too bad they
From: Robert Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There was some discussion of this on freebsd-advocacy yesterday
and today, and it sounded like it came down to poor tuning (not
enabling soft updates, et al) in combination with a heavy reliance
on threading, where we currently don't do so well.
Did
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Charles Randall wrote:
Did anyone offer to contact Lyris directly to identify a configuration which
would have fared better in their tests? Since their application is available
for FreeBSD, it is in our best interests for to help them out.
On a side note, I did contact
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:43:10AM -0400, Brent Verner wrote:
On 15 Jun 2001 at 00:38 (-0500), Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
| Mike Silbersack wrote:
| Matt's performance manpage covers a lot of this, but is probably not as
| easy to digest as an interactive script.
| What do I type to
I would heartily endorse having the out of the box FreeBSD install be tuned
better...
Sysadmin can't be knocked for not doing the tuning as running an out of
the box config is what a vast majority of users do, imho, so their performance
tests and the poor results from FreeBSD are perfectly
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
I would heartily endorse having the out of the box FreeBSD install be
tuned better...
Sysadmin can't be knocked for not doing the tuning as running an out of
the box config is what a vast majority of users do, imho, so their
performance tests and
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
[ ... Eliza program for FreeBSD ... ]
Doing this is non-trivial. Many of the things they should
have tuned can not be tuned except at compile time.
I think you just hit the nail on the head and
managed to identify the problem...
regards,
Rik
--
:On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
:
: I would heartily endorse having the out of the box FreeBSD install be
: tuned better...
:
: Sysadmin can't be knocked for not doing the tuning as running an out of
: the box config is what a vast majority of users do, imho, so their
: performance
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:23:21PM -0400, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Yes, it's not very difficult to guess why. If you read the tuning(7)
manpage in recent 4.x
:softupdates later on). Write-back caching is disabled in the disks,
:even if they support it. This is yet another step towards making the
:default installation of FreeBSD as reliable a system as it can be.
Well, not any more... we caved in on that one because the performance
loss was
On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:23:21PM -0400, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Yes, it's not very difficult
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:31:12PM -0400, Josh Osborne wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:23:21PM -0400, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD
:Of course, assuming dirpref and Ian's new directory cache have been MFC'd
:by the time 4.4 comes out, it will scream on that same benchmark.
:
:Mike Silby Silbersack
Yup! Even without dirpref.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:softupdates later on). Write-back caching is disabled in the disks,
:even if they support it. This is yet another step towards making the
:default installation of FreeBSD as reliable a system as it can be.
Well, not any more... we caved in on
Giorgos Keramidas writes:
Installing an operating system (be it FreeBSD, linux, Windows or what
else) and failing to tune the system to perform as good as possible
for the application, is no decent way of doing a benchmark. And when
is comes to benchmarks, you have to tune ALL the systems
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:22:39AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Matt has explained this better than I could ever do, in his tuning(7)
manpage -- a recent, but very valuable addition to our manpages.
It, indeed, must be very recent: I have upgraded my system just
last month, but I have no
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 09:45:53PM -0500, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:22:39AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Matt has explained this better than I could ever do, in his tuning(7)
manpage -- a recent, but very valuable addition to our manpages.
It, indeed, must be
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:23:21PM -0400, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Hrm... the filesystem test, I think, is fairly obvious. The default
filesystem configuration
* Rajappa Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010614 22:23] wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Because they did benchmarks on systems without tuning.
A simple email to the lists asking for help would
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Rajappa Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010614 22:23] wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Because they did benchmarks on systems without
On Thursday 14 June 2001 9:13, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Rajappa Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010614 22:23] wrote:
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly for these people?
Because they did benchmarks on systems
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Devin Butterfield wrote:
So why doesn't FreeBSD ship with a tuned configuration? Just curious...
--
Regards, Devin.
Why? Because you haven't sent in the changes which would implement it
yet. :)
Rather than a tuned configuration, what would be useful is a script that
Mike Silbersack wrote:
Matt's performance manpage covers a lot of this, but is probably not as
easy to digest as an interactive script.
What do I type to read this man page?
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
To Unsubscribe: send mail
On 15 Jun 2001 at 00:38 (-0500), Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
| Mike Silbersack wrote:
|
|
| Matt's performance manpage covers a lot of this, but is probably not as
| easy to digest as an interactive script.
|
|
| What do I type to read this man page?
$ man tuning
To Unsubscribe:
34 matches
Mail list logo
