From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 07:08:33 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77319E62 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 07:08:33 +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 3B946E18 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 07:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.80.1) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1UhE19-000dTC-F5>; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:08:23 +0200 Received: from f052242046.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.242.46] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.80.1) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1UhE19-003S3k-CR>; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:08:23 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:08:22 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs Message-ID: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Organization: FU Berlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.18; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 78.52.242.46 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:08:33 -0000 Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB performance between each system). Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems. Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS isn't really needed. Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and measure. But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels). From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 09:03:46 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1B6AFC for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:03:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F10659 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ii15so1374574qab.10 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:03:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ut6Z33x92VSju2iW32WBnvCtoDhOE5I3Ka6XbCqska8=; b=F/ZI90MNZSW3+hb2HoEjhSbyVDuahloEfZ41ZYFXzy021RC2geM5OAxwXlMs5IA6RV Da53VScSct13G3qPLbabX0wy+78TG1p765/Bqco2cLqkh3b+HZdo2oc8LoKP62PfKbQk mWmvhDSTV5V4Jf+fkaMe8jL09o/JuPm+OjwQWAark9LNvjw7xF5UNO5bczS/HxaIbAaE /MqOFNBar0nJPSYh76e6g9IwSrW2f62Qb7FwM1cYYin+g1yVa1n39MHG3zEL9NvYg+Yv wau+z6QLdm1NTFjdW8Nnuc/3A3NaPFNwnwQPphDpIFbQp8jwWTA04YqOw07/jyjvynIa FwIA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.52.212 with SMTP id j20mr4933356qag.64.1369731825261; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.199.66 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:03:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 02:03:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6Yq7PQCnEfRWK68Z4kDSRyreYh4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs From: Adrian Chadd To: "O. Hartmann" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:03:47 -0000 outperform at what? adrian On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann wrote: > Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests > comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 > > It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the > gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux > distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at > Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB > performance between each system). > > Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are > orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those > from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems. > > Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a > very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS > isn't really needed. > > Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is > the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I > try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the > setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and > measure. > > But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our > department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and > in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several > FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD > 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels). > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 11:48:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E092861 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from c.kworr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCC31F1 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z5so7501270lbh.41 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9BoLY0feFzICkU9/GAHD5A2Lyegm2s0yMH7vYTSHd9U=; b=Dp3tg91ddpVynVGWM8l0zey9sjlKzBoy3zFQcz4nVZ194hyG87b07AFHFEeGX+2k0I XoG3CNbUvJSCnIq2DPxEhrqNYlx0QJ83Q9K2UIgOO1gywAnQOMAJPh2GIkEH8v1QR1Cs ZlAs+hRqWqS9ssfpbkx+0WTVzD/p9Y7DBx59j1CYCGWtTmBjaiCn18v95kkGW3lIgy2Z OWWQX+XPzJX+JcWmhOuzCMK9nd+PRMliUmihAWF72OPnsk/H4pDILiKlYqFsNNIOplJU SSS1KaYauqO9a2uGhNfVKxWoZT5m15bnzU0UecO7penzt8sv87sob01h+nUpqoO+Jv6W 9qIA== X-Received: by 10.112.89.195 with SMTP id bq3mr16339893lbb.19.1369741694657; Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.128] (mau.donbass.com. [92.242.127.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rr7sm8309816lbb.0.2013.05.28.04.48.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 May 2013 04:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A4997C.4030708@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:48:12 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "O. Hartmann" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:08:05 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:22 -0000 28.05.2013 10:08, O. Hartmann: > Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests > comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 > > It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the > gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux > distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at > Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB > performance between each system). > > Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are > orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those > from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems. > > Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a > very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS > isn't really needed. Not a point for me. ZFS gives me confidence in data consistency. > Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is > the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I > try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the > setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and > measure. > > But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our > department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and > in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several > FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD > 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels). ... (Looking through all benchmarks for some real world scenarios) Oh, we are better at Apache. And why there are no numbers next to PgSQL? DragonFly definitely would kick some ass at pgbench. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 12:12:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BD7136 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:12:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5020385 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C0520B33 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([unixlocal]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 May 2013 08:12:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; h= content-type:to:subject:references:date:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id:in-reply-to; s= mesmtp; bh=JZq5go2xuF9vACuYIcUg02W9ZbM=; b=DzsJPTJ/+8vl86jojh+Mv uameSBRHRpQbcxa17zOd0fRIBhLriE6f635vL+sm7Vk0ZTZy5eA0jKZa7sJ+523E pPb5Q3jEx54usZcofYE3UpjLsrf3k+o4PgQWIWRtJtrLhANu3vmLymHVb+OBBzeh WC9wuNjnn7dyhI0zVPjglg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:to:subject:references:date :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=JZq5go2xuF9vACuYIcUg02W9ZbM=; b=k+DL OI8M/tfMs20VO1Wnl8uYD4dD9Ez8YrQ7MRXee671CTkom1h54MxTonEfHt640Xi5 Pb9sQyBL5NR2eN2pIhS1ki4yuNuASLHUxm2y2Tipk7ATB1Xrj8lX8W0NuEXrEHbl HDHjsM+VSKF63hlxuDTo7Rb5WeWbjk/5gOHO/NQ= X-Sasl-enc: pbS9l2ZUxhu0J1yHDFeaZ/+S6aK28aTJ+ILnW/YR3oE+ 1369743171 Received: from markf.office.supranet.net (unknown [66.170.8.18]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2DE0A2001A7 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:12:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Mark Felder" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (FreeBSD) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:12:51 -0000 Phoronix is The Onion of *nix journalism. It's cute, but you'd have to be crazy to believe it. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 13:02:30 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0D1A54 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pathiaki2@yahoo.com) Received: from nm33-vm5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm33-vm5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.239.205]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92502888 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.139.215.140] by nm33.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2013 13:02:23 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.251] by tm11.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2013 13:02:23 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1060.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2013 13:02:23 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 397710.99376.bm@omp1060.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 64474 invoked by uid 60001); 28 May 2013 13:02:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1369746143; bh=P3FbBAjkHm8XBd3I/fPtyj+Tqoi1kJQBBzTi/e8P1q8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=h42W85SVgnQ925d+acMpUR8n4IgFLMnodqjq1YVqHivtu+mzuTLRd0GfABWitlgr4AseKTTtVfPCaAkcdbeDOClI3YH3wn4g8tToHLNWjpLBNqG8Nj1VFw93iZCRJFSJRZ2i37zJHWUA8Hi90tikL8AdnOnjw9PY4BrS3i6wPbs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qqzDqSkioQBt8av8XNMHW7cayvsTISpJ7btYAko47estdSs6tYAAlDwWAYyap4X1hdeC9cwicf7MgrN7MV63/uAX7isQT2OHd/u8cS3Mgd9UCOUtvvPIXgYgiYvyN05QUnDdteZtN3gIgbpqKUMYPuxHzttbX4FCO3R8o8dSxsc=; X-YMail-OSG: wlWt0mwVM1nG5x.AHEW5owj2nxV8goGp07Fs9UY8PapJLEw ZyE2_BWSQDHCP2.jpCbaEJaSQnHTpZ6nnT4hleDXb7lqIcHuKq.x88NBuN4c xP3hJDwS9fDn_m6ezhO0A12yut_R4Do2auvIebpjnfMxGlIjJOBwxsyCW6p4 zpspF0j2T_Uo_Um7Ba9srh7R.P_jp7peJolyCdnI_Jne44Btw4_WBYyn0HNI Dz7FCReT54eP3fV92h.n8cIos2MkD.AjngZi3lhBOAe0DFVYUBAVQ9cKSbdG vwBawKBMklEa8C22QgobPSiBb7kSYjDBHi.UzzK5yQcqnRK_UkvQ5PuN4eul KAcL2WgBaVFhlJgdPfSIHgPH8fBkA5kUYztPPtgfw1.6_rkxJgSyyLYSGo5a mPT4xSfXDTjn5dK8kyCOvj_EDBFDk_EnpsOgwbNOv4ekeC7HLoLuXouTOYpf 1UIMxjS3Mx4PR9uNg2m3Wr8wM8fN72WDMXDEamJYAfb8aQ_2y5xAfcK8a5Y2 02v7koLKHxtuyI82t7gRQyfSbj35NGbtOA.X1heLObELTFvbSaugIUGkv0UX W_GhhE5oXUaSPRZwQ4Ooy1Q0K_qKmBEa6hGehnnGRs5wp93BCCP7_Svju4d0 OfUpR5A5QmyIDy0t3eYwkoFYAZl7IHIHxdfm8pyckz_ye3Gb9zc.kB.vP.22 G8DtDZ3XksbEoDEfr9vhGNu2xOrb3BQMajHPdUCX_cxNDSvMD63z07hlfUy8 dql5o7NUSrxQZc58UwM8kXLOCKoCIq.o- Received: from [68.186.255.231] by web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 06:02:22 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, T3V0cGVyZm9ybSBhdCAib3V0IG9mIHRoZSBib3giIHRlc3RpbmcuIDstKQoKU28sIGlmIEkgaGF2ZSBhICJkZXNrdG9wIiBkaXN0cm8gbGlrZSBQQ0JTRCwgdGhlIG9ubHkgdGhpbmcgb2YgcmVsZXZhbmNlIGlzIHB1dHRpbmcgdXAgbXkgb3duIHdlYiBzZXJ2ZXI_Pz8_IChZZXMsIHRoZSBiZW5jaG1hcmsgc2hvd2VkIFBDQlNEIHNlcmlvdXNseSBraWNraW5nIGJ1dHQgd2l0aCBBcGFjaGUgb24gc3RhdGljIHBhZ2VzLi4uLiBidXQgd2h5IHdvdWxkIEkgY2FyZSBvbiBhIGRlc2t0b3AgT1M_KQoKUGVyc29uYWwBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.144.546 References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1369746142.64078.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Pathiakis Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs To: Adrian Chadd , "O. Hartmann" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Pathiakis List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:30 -0000 Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-)=0A=0ASo, if I have a "desktop" = distro like PCBSD, the only thing of relevance is putting up my own web ser= ver???? (Yes, the benchmark showed PCBSD seriously kicking butt with Apache= on static pages.... but why would I care on a desktop OS?)=0A=0APersonally= , I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy on just about any= thing.=A0 =0A=0ADon't get me wrong, I do like the fact that this was done.= =A0 However, there are compiler differences (It was noted many times that C= LANG was used and it may have been a detriment but it doesn't go into the h= ow or why.) and other issues.=0A=0AThere was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but= I didn't see any *BSD results?=0A=0ATransactions to a disk?=A0 Does this m= easure the "bundling" effect of the "groups of transactions" of ZFS?=A0 Tha= t's a whole lot less transactions that are sent to disk.=A0 (Does anyone kn= ow any place where this can be found?=A0 That is, how does the whole "bundl= ing of disk I/O" go from writing to memory, locking those writes, then send= ing all the info in one shot to the disk?=A0 This helps:=A0 http://blog.del= phix.com/ahl/2012/zfs-fundamentals-transaction-groups/ )=0A=0AI was working= at a company that had the intention of doing "electronic asset ingestion a= nd tagging".=A0 Basically, take any thing moved to the front end web server= s, copy it to disk, replicate it to other machines, etc... (maybe not in th= at order)=A0 The whole system was java based.=0A=0AThis was 3 years ago.=A0= I believe I was using Debian V4 (it had just come out....=A0 I don't recal= l the names etch, etc) and I took a single machine and rebuilt it 12 times:= =A0 OpenSuSe with ext2, ext3, xfs.=A0 Debian with ext2, ext3, xfs.=A0 CentO= S with ext2, ext3, xfs.=A0 FreeBSD 8.1 with ZFS, UFS2 w/ SU.=0A=0AWell, the= numbers came in and this was all done on the same HP 180 1u server rebuilt= that many times.=A0 I withheld the FBSD results as the development was don= e on Debian and people were "Linux inclined".=A0 The requisite was for 1500= 0 tpm per machine for I/O.=A0 Linux could only get to 3500.=A0 People were = pissed and they were looking at 5 years and $20m in time and development.= =A0 That's when I put the FBSD results in front of them..... 75,200 tpm.=A0= Now, this was THEIR measurements and THEIR benchmarks (The Engineering tea= m).=A0 The machine was doing nothing but running flat out on a horrible met= hod of using directory structure to organize the asset tags... (yeah, ugly)= =A0 However, ZFS almost didn't care compared to a traditional filesystem.= =A0 =0A=0ASo, what it comes down do is simple.... you can benchmark anythin= g you want with various "authoritative" benchmarks, but in the end, your be= nchmark on your data set (aka real world in your world) is the only thing t= hat matters.=0A=0ABTW, what happened in the situation I described?=A0 Despi= te, a huge cost savings and incredible performance....=A0 "We have to use D= ebian as we never put any type of automation in place that would allow us t= o be able to move from one OS to another"...=A0 Yeah, I guess a Systems Arc= hitect (like me) is something that people tend to overlook.=A0 System autom= ation to allow nimble transitions like that are totally overlooked.=0A=0ABe= nchmarks are "nice".=A0 However, tuning and understanding the underlying te= ch and what's it's good for is priceless.=A0 Knowing there are memory manag= ement issues, scheduling issues, certain types of I/O on certain FS that ca= use it to sing or sob, these are the things that will make someone invaluab= le.=A0 No one should be a tech bigot.=A0 The mantra should be:=A0 "The best= tech for the situation".=A0 No one should care if it's BSD, Linux, or Wind= oze if it's what works best in the situation.=0A=0AP=0A=0APS -=A0 When I se= e how many people are clueless about how much tech is ripped off from BSD t= o make other vendors' products just work and then they slap at BSD.... it's= pretty bad.=A0 GPLv3?=A0 Thank you... there are so many people going to a = "no GPL products in house" policy that there is a steady increase in BSD an= d ZFS.=A0 I can only hope GPLv4 becomes "If you use our stuff, we own all t= he machines and code that our stuff coexists on" :-)=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__= ______________________________=0A From: Adrian Chadd = =0ATo: O. Hartmann =0ACc: freebsd-performance= @freebsd.org =0ASent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM=0ASubject: Re: New Phor= onix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs=0A =0A=0Aoutperf= orm at what?=0A=0A=0A=0Aadrian=0A=0AOn 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann wrote:=0A> Phoronix has emitted another of its "fa= mous" performance tests=0A> comparing different flavours of Linux (their ob= vious favorite OS):=0A>=0A> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle= &item=3Dbsd_linux_8way&num=3D1=0A>=0A> It is "impressive, too, to see that = PHORONIX did not benchmark the=0A> gaming performance - this is done exclus= ively on the Linux=0A> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graph= ics cards at=0A> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVi= dia BLOB=0A> performance between each system).=0A>=0A> Although I'm not muc= h impressed by the way the benchmarks are=0A> orchestrated, Phoronix is the= only platform known to me providing those=0A> from time to time benchmarks= on most recent available operating systems.=0A>=0A> Also, the bad performa= nce of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a=0A> very harsh impact on sys= tems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS=0A> isn't really needed.=0A>= =0A> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is= =0A> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I= =0A> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the= =0A> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and=0A> me= asure.=0A>=0A> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I = see at our=0A> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 = or Suse and=0A> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform= the several=0A> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD= =0A> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels)= .=0A> _______________________________________________=0A> freebsd-performan= ce@freebsd.org mailing list=0A> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/f= reebsd-performance=0A> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performanc= e-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A______________________________________________= _=0Afreebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list=0Ahttp://lists.freebsd.org= /mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance=0ATo unsubscribe, send any mail to "f= reebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 14:28:08 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4D9DD9; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:28:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from db@nipsi.de) Received: from fop.bsdsystems.de (mx.bsdsystems.de [88.198.57.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED873EE9; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hamstedm247370.global.intra.guj.com (unknown [194.12.218.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fop.bsdsystems.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8131B55D48; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:27:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: dennis berger In-Reply-To: <1369746142.64078.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:27:58 +0200 Message-Id: References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> <1369746142.64078.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> To: Paul Pathiakis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Adrian Chadd , "O. Hartmann" , "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:28:08 -0000 Hi, for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But this = doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the = postmark output here. I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence. Guest and the actual test system is FreeBSD9.1/64bit inside of = Virtualbox. Host system is MacOSX on 4year old macbook Storage is VDI file backed on a SSD (OCZ vortex 2) with a 2gb ZFS pool=20= When you I postmark with 25K transactions I get an output like this. = (http://fsbench.filesystems.org/bench/postmark-1_5.c) pm>run Creating files...Done Performing transactions..........Done Deleting files...Done Time: 6 seconds total 5 seconds of transactions (5000 per second) Files: 13067 created (2177 per second) Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) Mixed with transactions: 12567 files (2513 per second) 12420 read (2484 per second) 12469 appended (2493 per second) 13067 deleted (2177 per second) Deletion alone: 634 files (634 per second) Mixed with transactions: 12433 files (2486 per second) Data: 80.71 megabytes read (13.45 megabytes per second) 84.59 megabytes written (14.10 megabytes per second) I did this 100 times on my notebook and summed up this. root@freedb:/pool/nase # ministat -n *.txt x alltransactions.txt + appended-no.txt * created-no.txt % deleted-no.txt # reed-no.txt N Min Max Median Avg = Stddev x 100 3571 5000 5000 4690.25 = 435.65125 + 100 1781 2493 2493 2338.84 = 216.8531 * 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 % 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 # 100 1774 2484 2484 2330.22 = 216.3084 When I check "zpool iostat 1" I see root@freedb:/pool/nase # zpool iostat 1 capacity operations bandwidth pool alloc free read write read write ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 8 28 312K ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 33 0 4.09M ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- pool 19.6M 1.97G 0 89 0 4.52M ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- around 30-90 TPS bursts.=20 Did they counted this instead? -dennis Am 28.05.2013 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Pathiakis: > Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-) >=20 > So, if I have a "desktop" distro like PCBSD, the only thing of = relevance is putting up my own web server???? (Yes, the benchmark showed = PCBSD seriously kicking butt with Apache on static pages.... but why = would I care on a desktop OS?) >=20 > Personally, I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy on = just about anything. =20 >=20 > Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that this was done. However, = there are compiler differences (It was noted many times that CLANG was = used and it may have been a detriment but it doesn't go into the how or = why.) and other issues. >=20 > There was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but I didn't see any *BSD = results? >=20 > Transactions to a disk? Does this measure the "bundling" effect of = the "groups of transactions" of ZFS? That's a whole lot less = transactions that are sent to disk. (Does anyone know any place where = this can be found? That is, how does the whole "bundling of disk I/O" = go from writing to memory, locking those writes, then sending all the = info in one shot to the disk? This helps: = http://blog.delphix.com/ahl/2012/zfs-fundamentals-transaction-groups/ ) >=20 > I was working at a company that had the intention of doing "electronic = asset ingestion and tagging". Basically, take any thing moved to the = front end web servers, copy it to disk, replicate it to other machines, = etc... (maybe not in that order) The whole system was java based. >=20 > This was 3 years ago. I believe I was using Debian V4 (it had just = come out.... I don't recall the names etch, etc) and I took a single = machine and rebuilt it 12 times: OpenSuSe with ext2, ext3, xfs. Debian = with ext2, ext3, xfs. CentOS with ext2, ext3, xfs. FreeBSD 8.1 with = ZFS, UFS2 w/ SU. >=20 > Well, the numbers came in and this was all done on the same HP 180 1u = server rebuilt that many times. I withheld the FBSD results as the = development was done on Debian and people were "Linux inclined". The = requisite was for 15000 tpm per machine for I/O. Linux could only get = to 3500. People were pissed and they were looking at 5 years and $20m = in time and development. That's when I put the FBSD results in front of = them..... 75,200 tpm. Now, this was THEIR measurements and THEIR = benchmarks (The Engineering team). The machine was doing nothing but = running flat out on a horrible method of using directory structure to = organize the asset tags... (yeah, ugly) However, ZFS almost didn't care = compared to a traditional filesystem. =20 >=20 > So, what it comes down do is simple.... you can benchmark anything you = want with various "authoritative" benchmarks, but in the end, your = benchmark on your data set (aka real world in your world) is the only = thing that matters. >=20 > BTW, what happened in the situation I described? Despite, a huge cost = savings and incredible performance.... "We have to use Debian as we = never put any type of automation in place that would allow us to be able = to move from one OS to another"... Yeah, I guess a Systems Architect = (like me) is something that people tend to overlook. System automation = to allow nimble transitions like that are totally overlooked. >=20 > Benchmarks are "nice". However, tuning and understanding the = underlying tech and what's it's good for is priceless. Knowing there = are memory management issues, scheduling issues, certain types of I/O on = certain FS that cause it to sing or sob, these are the things that will = make someone invaluable. No one should be a tech bigot. The mantra = should be: "The best tech for the situation". No one should care if = it's BSD, Linux, or Windoze if it's what works best in the situation. >=20 > P >=20 > PS - When I see how many people are clueless about how much tech is = ripped off from BSD to make other vendors' products just work and then = they slap at BSD.... it's pretty bad. GPLv3? Thank you... there are so = many people going to a "no GPL products in house" policy that there is a = steady increase in BSD and ZFS. I can only hope GPLv4 becomes "If you = use our stuff, we own all the machines and code that our stuff coexists = on" :-) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ________________________________ > From: Adrian Chadd > To: O. Hartmann =20 > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org=20 > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes = and *BSDs >=20 >=20 > outperform at what? >=20 >=20 >=20 > adrian >=20 > On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann wrote: >> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests >> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): >>=20 >> = http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dbsd_linux_8way&num=3D= 1 >>=20 >> It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the >> gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux >> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at >> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB >> performance between each system). >>=20 >> Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are >> orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing = those >> from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating = systems. >>=20 >> Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a >> very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog = ZFS >> isn't really needed. >>=20 >> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is >> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what = I >> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the >> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and >> measure. >>=20 >> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at = our >> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse = and >> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the = several >> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD >> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux = kernels). >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 15:04:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F261188F; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from db@bsdsystems.de) Received: from fop.bsdsystems.de (mx.bsdsystems.de [88.198.57.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE88FFA; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hamstedm247370.global.intra.guj.com (unknown [194.12.218.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fop.bsdsystems.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FC455D58; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:04:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: dennis berger In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:04:46 +0200 Message-Id: <47ED9A36-D61D-42AB-B146-2E03197CBF97@bsdsystems.de> References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> <1369746142.64078.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> To: dennis berger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:56:45 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Paul Pathiakis , Adrian Chadd , "O. Hartmann" , "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:04:49 -0000 Sorry, I missed the "variable file sizes" part. So forget about my post. Am 28.05.2013 um 16:27 schrieb dennis berger: > Hi, > for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But = this doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the = postmark output here. >=20 > I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence. >=20 > Guest and the actual test system is FreeBSD9.1/64bit inside of = Virtualbox. > Host system is MacOSX on 4year old macbook > Storage is VDI file backed on a SSD (OCZ vortex 2) with a 2gb ZFS = pool=20 >=20 > When you I postmark with 25K transactions I get an output like this. = (http://fsbench.filesystems.org/bench/postmark-1_5.c) >=20 > pm>run > Creating files...Done > Performing transactions..........Done > Deleting files...Done > Time: > 6 seconds total > 5 seconds of transactions (5000 per second) >=20 > Files: > 13067 created (2177 per second) > Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12567 files (2513 per second) > 12420 read (2484 per second) > 12469 appended (2493 per second) > 13067 deleted (2177 per second) > Deletion alone: 634 files (634 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12433 files (2486 per second) >=20 > Data: > 80.71 megabytes read (13.45 megabytes per second) > 84.59 megabytes written (14.10 megabytes per second) >=20 > I did this 100 times on my notebook and summed up this. >=20 > root@freedb:/pool/nase # ministat -n *.txt > x alltransactions.txt > + appended-no.txt > * created-no.txt > % deleted-no.txt > # reed-no.txt > N Min Max Median Avg = Stddev > x 100 3571 5000 5000 4690.25 = 435.65125 > + 100 1781 2493 2493 2338.84 = 216.8531 > * 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 > % 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 > # 100 1774 2484 2484 2330.22 = 216.3084 >=20 >=20 > When I check "zpool iostat 1" I see >=20 > root@freedb:/pool/nase # zpool iostat 1 > capacity operations bandwidth > pool alloc free read write read write > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 8 28 312K > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 33 0 4.09M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 19.6M 1.97G 0 89 0 4.52M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- >=20 >=20 > around 30-90 TPS bursts.=20 >=20 > Did they counted this instead? >=20 >=20 > -dennis >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Am 28.05.2013 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Pathiakis: >=20 >> Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-) >>=20 >> So, if I have a "desktop" distro like PCBSD, the only thing of = relevance is putting up my own web server???? (Yes, the benchmark showed = PCBSD seriously kicking butt with Apache on static pages.... but why = would I care on a desktop OS?) >>=20 >> Personally, I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy = on just about anything. =20 >>=20 >> Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that this was done. However, = there are compiler differences (It was noted many times that CLANG was = used and it may have been a detriment but it doesn't go into the how or = why.) and other issues. >>=20 >> There was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but I didn't see any *BSD = results? >>=20 >> Transactions to a disk? Does this measure the "bundling" effect of = the "groups of transactions" of ZFS? That's a whole lot less = transactions that are sent to disk. (Does anyone know any place where = this can be found? That is, how does the whole "bundling of disk I/O" = go from writing to memory, locking those writes, then sending all the = info in one shot to the disk? This helps: = http://blog.delphix.com/ahl/2012/zfs-fundamentals-transaction-groups/ ) >>=20 >> I was working at a company that had the intention of doing = "electronic asset ingestion and tagging". Basically, take any thing = moved to the front end web servers, copy it to disk, replicate it to = other machines, etc... (maybe not in that order) The whole system was = java based. >>=20 >> This was 3 years ago. I believe I was using Debian V4 (it had just = come out.... I don't recall the names etch, etc) and I took a single = machine and rebuilt it 12 times: OpenSuSe with ext2, ext3, xfs. Debian = with ext2, ext3, xfs. CentOS with ext2, ext3, xfs. FreeBSD 8.1 with = ZFS, UFS2 w/ SU. >>=20 >> Well, the numbers came in and this was all done on the same HP 180 1u = server rebuilt that many times. I withheld the FBSD results as the = development was done on Debian and people were "Linux inclined". The = requisite was for 15000 tpm per machine for I/O. Linux could only get = to 3500. People were pissed and they were looking at 5 years and $20m = in time and development. That's when I put the FBSD results in front of = them..... 75,200 tpm. Now, this was THEIR measurements and THEIR = benchmarks (The Engineering team). The machine was doing nothing but = running flat out on a horrible method of using directory structure to = organize the asset tags... (yeah, ugly) However, ZFS almost didn't care = compared to a traditional filesystem. =20 >>=20 >> So, what it comes down do is simple.... you can benchmark anything = you want with various "authoritative" benchmarks, but in the end, your = benchmark on your data set (aka real world in your world) is the only = thing that matters. >>=20 >> BTW, what happened in the situation I described? Despite, a huge = cost savings and incredible performance.... "We have to use Debian as = we never put any type of automation in place that would allow us to be = able to move from one OS to another"... Yeah, I guess a Systems = Architect (like me) is something that people tend to overlook. System = automation to allow nimble transitions like that are totally overlooked. >>=20 >> Benchmarks are "nice". However, tuning and understanding the = underlying tech and what's it's good for is priceless. Knowing there = are memory management issues, scheduling issues, certain types of I/O on = certain FS that cause it to sing or sob, these are the things that will = make someone invaluable. No one should be a tech bigot. The mantra = should be: "The best tech for the situation". No one should care if = it's BSD, Linux, or Windoze if it's what works best in the situation. >>=20 >> P >>=20 >> PS - When I see how many people are clueless about how much tech is = ripped off from BSD to make other vendors' products just work and then = they slap at BSD.... it's pretty bad. GPLv3? Thank you... there are so = many people going to a "no GPL products in house" policy that there is a = steady increase in BSD and ZFS. I can only hope GPLv4 becomes "If you = use our stuff, we own all the machines and code that our stuff coexists = on" :-) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ________________________________ >> From: Adrian Chadd >> To: O. Hartmann =20 >> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org=20 >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM >> Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes = and *BSDs >>=20 >>=20 >> outperform at what? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> adrian >>=20 >> On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann = wrote: >>> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests >>> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): >>>=20 >>> = http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dbsd_linux_8way&num=3D= 1 >>>=20 >>> It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the >>> gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux >>> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at >>> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB >>> performance between each system). >>>=20 >>> Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are >>> orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing = those >>> from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating = systems. >>>=20 >>> Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a >>> very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog = ZFS >>> isn't really needed. >>>=20 >>> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is >>> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what = I >>> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of = the >>> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and >>> measure. >>>=20 >>> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at = our >>> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse = and >>> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the = several >>> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD >>> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux = kernels). >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Dennis Berger email: db@bsdsystems.de mobile: +491791231509 fon: +494054001817