Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:05:21 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, TM4525@aol.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Message-ID: <p06110415bd8b4e27789a@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20041007181509.GA10199@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <bf.477daa3e.2e96e0af@aol.com> <20041007181509.GA10199@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:15 AM -0700 10/7/04, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 07, 2004, TM4525@aol.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to
>> > > substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single
>> > > processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use
>> > > SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be
>> > > if you run 4 processor systems.
>> >
>> > Already done so.
>> >
>> > Kris
> >
> > Is it really too difficult for you to post a pointer or
> > reference for those of us who don't have the time to spend
> > our entire lives reading mailing lists archives?
>
>Uh, it was in a reply to your message.
This topic may be going on in multiple threads, so apologies if I
am missing something. In this thread I notice a reply with the
benchmark:
Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation
rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various
target loads:
Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP
50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000
75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001
100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000
125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000
150000 150000 150015 150014 150015 150015
175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097
200000 200000 200000 179621 181445 169451
225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831
250000 250000 242742 179979 181138 169212
275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283
300000 300000 242213 179157 181098 169355
That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP)
and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be
that he ignored the table as soon as he read "dual Xeon".
But when he asked for a "pointer or reference", I was expecting
to see a URL which pointed to some additional benchmarks. I did
not notice any URL's in any of your replies in this thread. Did
you think that you had included a URL in some reply, or were you
referring to the above benchmark? Or did I just miss the reply
which included that URL?
Mind you, the above benchmark is very encouraging, so I am not
complaining about it. I am only wondering if there were additional
benchmarks written up. Well, I am also wondering what the reason
is for both a "desired" and "optimal" column in the above. When
would "desired" ever be different than "optimal"? :-)
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06110415bd8b4e27789a>