Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:27 +0100 From: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Message-ID: <343FCC0E-C72D-4AE8-B730-5A3DE1046420@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
O Hartmann says: > 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. >=20 > =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. >=20 > 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. My experience is that using gcc 4.6 gives *much* better performance than = using the obsolete gcc that is in FreeBSD and much better performance than clang. After all = you have to pay the price=20 for stupidities such as being GPL free. Or you can see it otherwise, you = can compete on the most GPL free system, or the best working system. As for the ZFS versus = ext3 performance, here also if you try to sell FreeBSD on features which are supposed to have = extraordinary benefits don't be surprised=20 when testers use these features and find horrendous performance issues. -- Michel Talon talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?343FCC0E-C72D-4AE8-B730-5A3DE1046420>