From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 7 20:05:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17DA16A4CE for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:05:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BCF43D4C for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:05:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i97K5MbD000815; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:05:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20041007181509.GA10199@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041007181509.GA10199@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:05:21 -0400 To: Kris Kennaway , TM4525@aol.com From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:05:29 -0000 At 11:15 AM -0700 10/7/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Thu, Oct 07, 2004, TM4525@aol.com wrote: >> > > >> > > why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to >> > > substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single >> > > processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use >> > > SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be >> > > if you run 4 processor systems. >> > >> > Already done so. >> > >> > Kris > > > > Is it really too difficult for you to post a pointer or > > reference for those of us who don't have the time to spend > > our entire lives reading mailing lists archives? > >Uh, it was in a reply to your message. This topic may be going on in multiple threads, so apologies if I am missing something. In this thread I notice a reply with the benchmark: Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 150000 150000 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 200000 200000 200000 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 250000 250000 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 300000 300000 242213 179157 181098 169355 That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be that he ignored the table as soon as he read "dual Xeon". But when he asked for a "pointer or reference", I was expecting to see a URL which pointed to some additional benchmarks. I did not notice any URL's in any of your replies in this thread. Did you think that you had included a URL in some reply, or were you referring to the above benchmark? Or did I just miss the reply which included that URL? Mind you, the above benchmark is very encouraging, so I am not complaining about it. I am only wondering if there were additional benchmarks written up. Well, I am also wondering what the reason is for both a "desired" and "optimal" column in the above. When would "desired" ever be different than "optimal"? :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu