From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sun Aug 21 05:21:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709DDBB9EA2 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:21:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42FF01935 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:21:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pa0-x232.google.com with SMTP id pp5so27626221pac.3 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=F/7HmSfU9Hi+MgcMlUskTK8u5//XTdK9RGXYx+JOJxc=; b=jDKvrTMceDxVhcJIGrrj1xRp/xK391LWMNLA9IGvlbNxEB0n023rOoW2e96yeBO5KC B7HRcwrRvvNfeZ86SjzzEz9OWHmVJQHoyqxbC4km2RWBUZIclYJlRymHB0UqhLXYlOFG cErImU4XT3tq8f32s6FfPrl0HkF7EzP17Od/XfXgZZg5/bVy/Ix47vCTAeGZwPVoPJTn N8cKiIKNnoY33q3FEFLCroJudmWz+hdP6ngXhSch07WeSCk1maCu+W+rAnaR79uYavJW Z5HubkdluSgvaHo4vkfCsEatW2AyEj0/skTRjVV0jsNFHpFwN+iMLGh9I0MMb2KNj+l4 QVCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=F/7HmSfU9Hi+MgcMlUskTK8u5//XTdK9RGXYx+JOJxc=; b=mHS5hTkT89BsJ0E1gEbKOrnpbPxpozhBuyGmqjNFiBQtkCC5VXHu2rDbMKBa3RZ13i B8q+dyDFhbFqzVZ21MPcbu6q3Gt9slNzRMfkiW/KLkrRnWJl5jezVi3zg1qv649sIJVl LyuwPHCZ9RsyMJGAElGaE8fTiyLLLkbQ54g1qAz4cnXzbA39mhT+j1IUSKeh1FbminEa pjJt//EvLWK8r2vQ9Im/a14rMy/GEoD7xd/wx11oe0YHj2W2GhkyHZyQzG7gemiRk1fq YRABIc0gKeLFSE1Lr7AoPrTLBEDj/GVD2wCc8Hz/hF8rFhZULqJD7oP7XZPNzqdbxRBl Jm6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutAVke0zCrlxfCBIEwybrQfw3+t0ikF7oRhobgbylf3utrPin62w6YJ2wswqY6+6Q== X-Received: by 10.66.78.5 with SMTP id x5mr29383882paw.108.1471756871534; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:f985:3c4b:2a0c:8bea? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b01-f985-3c4b-2a0c-8bea.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:f985:3c4b:2a0c:8bea]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bx9sm22627908pab.17.2016.08.20.22.21.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> To: Erich Dollansky , freebsd-stable From: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:21:01 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/50.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:21:12 -0000 On 19/08/2016 9:34 AM, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > I am sure that some know of this site: > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4 > > I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my > machines, a stupid question. Are there still some debugging aids > enabled in 11? They're off in those versions, but did note compiler (and compiler args) differences between within most tests (See attachments) as you mentioned. > I know that some of the results are caused by the use of CLang and > some of the results test applications/compilers and not operating > systems. gcc/clang tests and defaults in upstream build systems are almost certainly contributors. At a minimum it would be nice to see an attempt to standardise (force) compiler args across all OS runs for the same test, even if this doesn't prove to be perfect. Separating or adding tests for the same tests using non-default compilers (in particular latest GCC versions from ports) so they match across OS's would also be valuable. At a minimum it would be worth Michael highlighting the differences, and ideally removing these variables from the tests, even if they aren't default configurations. Though a test of out of the box configurations is still valuable, it can serve to muddy the underlying differences and make them tougher to isolate.