From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 30 13:47:06 2009 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 5D17610656CD; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:47:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from mail.potentialtech.com (internet.potentialtech.com [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCD88FC08; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (pr40.pitbpa0.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D1E2EBC3F; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:47:04 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org> Organization: Bill Moran X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i386-portbld-freebsd7.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0? 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: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:47:06 -0000 In response to Ivan Voras : > Thomas Backman wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > >> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the opposite. > > Corrected link: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_benchmarks&num=1 > > > > And yeah, quite honestly: disk scheduling in FreeBSD appears to suck... The only reason I'm not switching from Linux. :( "All operating systems were left with their default options during the installation process..." It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance improvements can be made in most cases by raising it. While it would be nice if FreeBSD shipped with a more performant default setting, it would also be nice if mindless benchmark drones would quit assuming that every system ships pre-configured to perform optimally in their benchmarks. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/