From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 21:42:50 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 A14DC106568F for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:42:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A0C8FC20 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr [134.157.10.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id pBGLQTVZ039260 ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:29 +0100 (CET) X-Ids: 164 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (sge91-2-82-227-32-26.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.32.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0719F20C97; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:27 +0100 (CET) From: Michel Talon Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:27 +0100 Message-Id: <343FCC0E-C72D-4AE8-B730-5A3DE1046420@lpthe.jussieu.fr> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4EEBB785.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4EEBB785.001/134.157.10.1/parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 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 21:42:50 -0000 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