From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 07:06:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B791065672; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:06:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11568FC08; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1RbRru-0006Wn-Rh>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:06:10 +0100 Received: from e178018085.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.18.85] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1RbRru-00022J-Md>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4EEAEDE1.50604@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:06:09 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Holden References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EEAE8DF.40303@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <4EEAE8DF.40303@rewt.org.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig39A77F392D735EB75795DD67" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.18.85 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Jeremy Chadwick , Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:06:13 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig39A77F392D735EB75795DD67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote: > Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann >> wrote: >>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today: >>> >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Dnews_item&px=3DMTAyNzA >>> >> it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is= >> using a kernel + compiler almost 2 years old, it still manages to >> out-perform the bleeding edge FreeBSD :-) >> > serenity# gcc --version > gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD] >=20 > serenity# uname -r > 9.0-RC3 >=20 For the underlying OS, as far as I know, the compiler hasn't as much impact as on userland software since autovectorization and other neat things are not used during system build. =46rom my experience using gcc 4.2 or 4.4/4.5 does not have an impact beyond 3% when SSE isn't explicetly enforced. More interesting is the performance gain due to the architecture. I think it would be very easy for M. Larabel to repeat this benchmark with a "bleeding edge" Ubuntu or Suse as well. And since FreeBSD 9.0 can be compiled with CLANG, it should be possible to compare both also with "bleeding edge" compilers, say FreeBSD 9/CLANG, Ubuntu 12/gcc 4.6.2. >> Now, from what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that a lot of= >> people are still in abnegation... >> >> my 0.2c, >> - Arnaud >> >>> It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts = of >>> the benchmark. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simply far beyon= d >>> disapointing, it is more than inacceptable and by just reading those >>> benchmarks, I'd like to drop thinking of using FreeBSD even as a back= end >>> server in scientific and business environments. In detail, some of th= e >>> SciMark benches look disappointing. The overall image can't help over= >>> the fact that in C-Ray FreeBSD is better performing. >>> >>> From the compiler, I'd like say there couldn't be a drop of more than= 10 >>> - 15% in performance - but not 10 or 100 times. >>> >>> I'm just thinking about the discussion of SCHED_ULE and all the saur >>> spots we discussed when I stumbled over the test. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Oliver --------------enig39A77F392D735EB75795DD67 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO6u3hAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8TCsH/1Aqj3f2K3XC7u6sDI8GlXn6 OK0v5A6UrlGHHWGz6mrJ60EeH8406T/e2eA1E0iRJotQwGdr0Rvpcm+J0bxcqom8 uBVJ/yXLFyiGT3GZR7t27/wrTRXRV9yYlxqaYs9zvTf2e9rUO4ttqx69yNV5SuSI 9wzkqqA8AmctorRrpyj2wVt0iNUFzFFPSBz/REj9vJOjdFPGdqWJwKUVDeEBQrny q/4lZjhmNX5qeeC2/enceYRgN3FjeYjSqHJ2JHw7qKPnYWYF3r7/J7A0A/es2G6b KQjBTs5xfUvnVwyu2gCQoFpNQ92S5kiq6KDZs+RQ6jaQUxBrEwdWHruOGLj2OIg= =+AbL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig39A77F392D735EB75795DD67--