From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Feb 17 7:13:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from trinity.skynet.be (trinity.skynet.be [195.238.2.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8965637B6BD for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:13:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by trinity.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A922122E0; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:13:38 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:37:50 +0100 To: Stephen Roome From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 2:13 PM +0000 2000/2/17, Stephen Roome wrote: > If we have a good benchmark that provides useful information I can >run it on a > large amount of different HP machines. Then again, it might be worth > considering the possibility of using "industry standard" benchmarks - if > indeed there are any that are relevant. When you're looking at the performance of a machine and how it may work as a mail system, I think postmark is at least a decent benchmark. It's not the only one I'd use, but it's certainly one of the main ones. I'd also use rawio (FreeBSD only, unfortunately) to give me some pretty good ideas of what kind of performance I can expect from the underlying hardware, and I haven't really made up my mind with regards to the others. > http://www.unixsolutions.hp.com/products/servers/lclass/performance.html > (I've never seen or used one of these myself, maybe out of the range ?) Uh, yes. Slightly out of range, indeed. We don't have anything here that would be comparable, save possibly one machine. The Dell 1300 I ran that with was a pretty low-end machine, relatively speaking. Maybe the equivalent of a D-Class HP box. > http://linux.cis.nctu.edu.tw/docs/mysql/db-perf.html I personally am not really interested in database benchmarks. I'm looking more at disk performance, both raw and filesystem, in a USENET news/mail spool context. > Anyway, I was pleased to see your original benchmarks anyway, sorry if it > sounded otherwise. Not a problem. Thanks! -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy _________________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message