From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 17 12:32:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from trinity.skynet.be (trinity.skynet.be [195.238.2.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB38337B7D4 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:32:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by trinity.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2674412218; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:32:11 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000217124904.S3509@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <74982.950812517@pinhead.parag.codegen.com> <20000217124904.S3509@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:30:38 +0100 To: Alfred Perlstein From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: FWIW: More questionable softupdates+vinum benchmarks Cc: Parag Patel , current@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:49 PM -0800 2000/2/17, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Depending on how temporary your temporary files are, it'd be > interesting to see if the 4.0 optimizations benifit your benchmark > and also remain stable. Yup, that would be an interesting question. > Would it be possible for you to grab a 4.0RC and let us know? Unfortunately, I don't think I can run 4.0RC on this machine right now. The guys from the vendor that we're leasing the drive array from are coming over on Thursday to set it up, and I need this machine to be rock solid and have lots of benchmarking done to it, so that I can throw the same benchmarks at the drive array once it's set up, and then be able to compare the two. Once they're gone, I can consider throwing 4.0RC on a spare disk I happen to have lying around and plug that into this machine, and see if that makes any difference. I'll almost certainly run -STABLE in production, but I should be able to run some tests with -CURRENT. I'm glad I decided to hang onto that disk.... Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Greg Lehey's "rawio" is dependant on -CURRENT, or if there is some magic incantation required to get it to run under -STABLE? I've run previous benchmarks with it, and I'd like my current ones to be directly comparable to the previous data, by having the same benchmark program, essentially the same hardware, slightly updated OS (3.4-STABLE versus 3.2-RELEASE), etc.... -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy _________________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message