From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jun 13 13:28: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from MPI-Softtech.Com (mpi.mpi-softtech.com [208.60.120.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D8037B409 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dleimbac@MPI-Softtech.Com) Received: from mpi-plusplus.mpi-softtech.com (mail@mpi-plusplus.mpi-softtech.com [208.60.120.164]); by MPI-Softtech.Com (8.9.3/8.9.3/MPI-Softtech/evision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP; id PAA25423 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:27:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dleimbac by mpi-plusplus.mpi-softtech.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15AIBz-00009V-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:28:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:28:47 -0500 To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Benchmarks and reactions Message-ID: <20010613162847.A582@mpi-plusplus.mpi-softtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i From: Dave Leimbach Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I think its really important to remember to take the Linux community as an example of how *not* to handle benchmarks showing your OS of choice has lesser performance than you thought. If we react calmly and try to reproduce the statistics or some related benchmarking we may actually find there are bugs in our code or even a place where optimization may be necessary. I am just curious as to why the standard generic FreeBSD distribution does not come with higher performance defaults. Certainly soft-updates are a plus in general. Why not use them by default? Dave To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message