Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:53:28 -0600 From: Anti <fearow@attbi.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: sellis@telus.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: web write-up Message-ID: <20030108195328.4d2d0f3c.fearow@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <3E1C5D98.7060304@potentialtech.com> References: <98130130380.20030108095305@telus.net> <3E1C5D98.7060304@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:19:20 -0500 Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote: > Sean Ellis wrote: > > Hello freebsd-questions, > > > > I wonder if anyone has any comment on this web article. The results > > of the benchmarking seem to portray FreeBSD in a less than > > favourable light. > > > > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm > > It looks like garbage to me. He doesn't give enough information to > reproduce his results, though I strongly suspect the FreeBSD box > has softupdates disabled, and is therefore going to be slower. > > His writeup isn't even very good. On the initial page he claims > they tested with FreeBSD, but on sidebar #2 he claims they used > OpenBSD. the only tuning they did ("kernel tweaks for high performance" lol) was upping kern.maxfiles and kern.maxfilesperproc... all one can argue this shows is that out of the box freebsd 4.2 isn't configured for optimal performance on these tests... `Anti` To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030108195328.4d2d0f3c.fearow>