On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Hacker wrote:
Kris,
w/r the http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/mysql.html page
The link to the MySQL config:
http://www.freebsd.org/%7Ekris/scaling/my.cnf
...gives me a 404.
Thanks,
Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
Hi Kris,
Do you think you'd have a chance to load up Windows Server on the same
machine and compare its MySQL and PostgreSQL to modern Linux, FreeBSD
and Solaris?
I dont think there's much chance of that, sorry. I dont have access to
a copy, the test machines are
Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
Hi Kris,
Do you think you'd have a chance to load up Windows Server on the same
machine and compare its MySQL and PostgreSQL to modern Linux, FreeBSD
and Solaris?
I dont think there's much chance of that, sorry. I dont have access to
a copy, the test machines are
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
Hi Kris,
Do you think you'd have a chance to load up Windows Server on the same
machine and compare its MySQL and PostgreSQL to modern Linux, FreeBSD
and Solaris?
I dont think there's
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The assertion is often made by dragonfly project supporters that
dragonfly has much better stability than FreeBSD. It is not clear
by what metric this is being objectively evaluated (if at all).
...
Obviously one panic does not demonstrate wide-ranging
Dave Hayes wrote:
Does an objective metric of stability actually exist? ( If you say
uptime I'll take that as a no ;) ) If it does, I would really like
to learn what that metric is. Do you know of any current
low-project-bias work that has been done in this area?
Thanks in advance. :)
It's
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Adrian Michael Nida wrote:
SnipAndRearrange/
The benchmark at http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/os-mysql.png
SnipAndRearrange/
Is measuring 1.8. We're at 1.12 now. I'm sure an updated graph has a
different
trend. Take it upon yourself to redo the benchmark.
Bill Hacker wrote:
Kris,
w/r the http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/mysql.html page
The link to the MySQL config:
http://www.freebsd.org/%7Ekris/scaling/my.cnf
...gives me a 404.
Thanks, fixed.
I don't have even a Quad-core I can spare from duty at the moment, but
I'd like to at
Adrian Michael Nida wrote:
SnipAndRearrange/
The benchmark at http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/os-mysql.png
SnipAndRearrange/
Is measuring 1.8. We're at 1.12 now. I'm sure an updated graph has a
different
trend. Take it upon yourself to redo the benchmark.
Hi Adrian,
Per your
On Sat, March 8, 2008 6:37 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Dragonfly 1.12 UP performance is about 30% lower than FreeBSD 4.11 UP
performance.
This regression seems strange; I don't think mfs has been touched much; it
may be an indirect effect of something else.
The first problem was encountered
Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
On Sat, March 8, 2008 6:37 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Dragonfly 1.12 UP performance is about 30% lower than FreeBSD 4.11 UP
performance.
This regression seems strange; I don't think mfs has been touched much; it
may be an indirect effect of something else.
Yeah,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
giga-snippage
Summary
---
As with the dragonfly 1.8 kernel, the dragonfly 1.12 kernel does not
scale to a second CPU on the benchmarks performed, and the limited SMP
implementation can cause a large performance loss at higher loads.
There is sometimes a large performance
Rahul Siddharthan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still keeping an eye on DragonFly, and hope to run it again one of
these days. I think the biggest problem in FreeBSD that DragonFly
fixes is attitude.
It's not a completely accurate answer, but attitude is certainly
sufficient in my book. I
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Justin C. Sherrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 27, 2008 11:29 pm, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
The benchmark at http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/os-mysql.png
(for the full presentation, see
http://www.freedomtc.com/pdf/7.0_Preview.pdf, that
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:53:36 +1100
Dmitri Nikulin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Justin C. Sherrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 27, 2008 11:29 pm, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
The benchmark at http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/os-mysql.png
On Thu, February 28, 2008 5:53 am, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
before internet clustering becomes useful at all. That's my biggest
fear regarding this project - that by the time its highest goals are
achievable, the full potential of those goals will still be out of
reach, perhaps forever.
Only if
Sure, but SMP scalability is one of the key goals of DragonFly, and
for it to be beaten by NetBSD (for which this is not a major goal, and
for which SMP scalability only started being worked on a year ago) is
very confusing. I haven't seen it compared with 1.12, but since no
huge scalability
Well, I'll give you my 5-second opinion.
What I am not worried about:
* Developer interest has always increased slowly and continues to
do so. I'd be interested in commit statistics but my gut feeling,
from NOT having to push into subsystems that I used to
Matthew Dillon wrote:
* Similarly with AMD64. We need it. I've developed the
infrastructure separation required and we even have a fully
virtualized kernel (vkernel) which demonstratres the infrastructure
separation. Most of the generic kernel code can
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Well, I'll give you my 5-second opinion.
*snip*
* Our interrupt routing subsystem really needs a major upgrade.
(i.e. a major port from FreeBSD).
Given that theirs has choked several times on some fairly common
hardware that DID work thru 6.2
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:13:25PM +, Bill Hacker wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
I spent more time then I should have perfecting the low level
infrastructure, trying to build a base upon which all the other
work could occur.
Stability is important to me but I also recognize that even the best
project can become stale if one does not choose to develop the right
aspects of it. A weakness in DragonFly is that it took a while to get
to the more interesting things, like HAMMER, and will take yet longer
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Matthew Dillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'll give you my 5-second opinion.
What I am not worried about:
...
* Ports and packages. This was a huge worry of mine at the beginning
of the project. I no longer worry about it.
Quoting Dmitri Nikulin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi everyone, I've been busy so I haven't said anything here in a long
time, but reading about FreeBSD 7 has raised some thoughts.
Snip/
Same here. From one old busy quiet guy to another, welcome back.
SnipAndRearrange/
I look forward to being told
On Wed, February 27, 2008 11:29 pm, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
The benchmark at http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/os-mysql.png
(for the full presentation, see
http://www.freedomtc.com/pdf/7.0_Preview.pdf, that plot is on slide
17) indicates that FreeBSD 7 not only competes strongly with
Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
At the risk of sounding like a troll, may I ask, if FreeBSD 7 has high
performance, high stability and remains reasonably clean and
maintainable, doesn't that partly invalidate the reasons DragonFly was
created?
Matt disputes the maintainability part of FreeBSD, but that is
26 matches
Mail list logo
