Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:06:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Message-ID: <200410082106.i98L6NB04387@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200410082100.04063.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> from "Thomas Sparrevohn" at Oct 08, 2004 09:00:03 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Friday 08 October 2004 16:54, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > > A very simple request - I do respect peoples right to state their point of > view - but there FreeBSD has through its entire life spam aimed (at least for > the time I have been following the delvelopment - and that goes far longer > back that I care to remember) stick to the scientific view of the world. > > At set of facts has been provided and there are questions about their validity > or for my personal perspective not about their validity - I am just trying to > understand the difference - There has never been in my point of view nor will > be within this group a need for settling differences by based on anything > than sound facts > > If the measurement is a fault - then surely it is explainable - if the > observation is correct then there is a point that needs to be addressed. > > I will repeat what I have said before - FreeBSD for my stands for a strict > Computer Science based approach to problem solving - and while everybody who > has been in that world often feels the urge to let steam out - a reasonable > tradition has establish that the best results are gained by dialogue > > So everybody Please - Everybody participating (or almost all) are an asset for > the development of FreeBSD - Ego's has clashed often enough an after > returning to the world of FreeBSD it seems to me that the lesson has not been > learned. The problem is that the first post on the subject of 5.xx performance was written in a very aggressively derogatory tone. In addition it exhibited quite a bit of ignorance of the process of bringing 5.xx in to being - a frequent topic on this list. In fact, hardly a day has gone by that hasn't had posts pointing out that 5.xx before 5.3 RELEASE is not ready for production. Many times it has been pointed out that it has inconsistencies that are still being worked out and debug code running that also affects how it runs. One would have to be either intentionally ignorant or intending to cause mischief to have "missed" all that. In the face of this, a very negative post that looks like an attempt to trash FreeBSD and the developers is very likely to ellicit some defensive responses as well as accusations of being a troll. After all, a troll is someone who jumps out from under his bridge and posts something just to get people mad and respond emotionally. Somebody with a real question and not trolling or with an axe to grind needs to ask the question as a question and not as an affront and challenge. Having said that, I would also say that those who found these posts an affront would be better off just shunning them rather than pumping up the rhetoric level. This has gone one long enough. No useful information seems to be forthcoming. I don't even remember who it was that started the OT thread. ////jerry > > Sorry to everybody else for the Bla Bla > > > In a message dated 10/8/04 2:37:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > tedm@toybox.placo.com writes: > > Kris and all, > > > > Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? > > > > Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of > > the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to > > have to spend some time forging them up. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Ah, so now anyone who questions your data is a Troll. Very convenient. > > The entire point of "believability" is the control, and the explanation of > > what the test actually tests. Thats the point of having a control, Ted. > > The test that was posted is not "believable" because it doesnt test > > anything that would actually happen > > in the real world. Do you buy a car because it hit 180 on the track? > > Is a car that can hit 190 but gets half the gas milage a better car? > > > > You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is "going to be > > so great". I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't > > have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done > > I'll test it. > > > > > > - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz > > > > fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, > > > > with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? > > > > > > Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the > > > kernel. > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Actually my traffic generator is in userland too, of course. I guess I'm > > just a better coder than whoever wrote your little benchmark. Or maybe > > the benchmark is too busy calculating stats to do the work its supposed > > to be doing. Another variable in the "test". > > > > > For this workload, yes. > > > > > > > It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP > > > > performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially > > > > improve SMP performance? > > > > > > Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there > > > are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to > > > hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. > > > > > > > This seems to show the opposite. > > > > > > No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. > > > Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks > > > on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? > > > > You must be a democrat Kris, because you always spin what people say > > in a way such that is completely wrong when you say it. I said "the 99% of > > us who don't use SMP", which is much different from "no one uses SMP", > > isn't it? 1% of several million is not "no-one", is it? > > > > Frankly, I didnt expect SMP performance to be so poor in 5.x since > > improving it > > is a stated goal. So I guess you recommend that anyone running a network > > server use a single processor? Are the gains in mySQL greater that the 40% > > loss in network performance? When mySQL is performaning so aptly, is > > the machine capable of handling a network load also? > > > > You (Kris) seem to think I'm asking you these questions, but I'm really > > not, but I guess I'm surprised you keep answering since you clearly don't > > have any of the answers. I'm just hoping someone does, somewhere. Because I > > don't see how you can develop an O/S without benchmarking your specific > > changes along the way. > > > > The folks at LINUX are guilty of building an O/S to suit their benchmarks. > > Its equally disturbing to implement theory without making sure that the > > theory works as expected. I just hope that pounding packets through a > > socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's > > arsenal. > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410082106.i98L6NB04387>