From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 20 22:54:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA5A106566B; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:54:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BE08FC08; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Rd8Zl-0002HE-1k>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:25 +0100 Received: from e178016253.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.16.253] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Rd8Zk-0008C4-Pd>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:25 +0100 Message-ID: <4EF1121F.9010209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:23 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Samuel J. Greear" References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB1D490B63A11258175672D7F" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.16.253 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Jeremy Chadwick , Igor Mozolevsky Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:54:27 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB1D490B63A11258175672D7F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote: > http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Signific= antly_Improved >=20 > PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Lin= ux > and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided. >=20 > Sam >=20 > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: >=20 >> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on >> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative= >> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to >> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any >> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real >> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two >> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and >> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in= >> making this statement, but someone has to!) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Igor M :-) >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.= org" >> Thanks for those numbers. Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place when it comes to a comparison to Linux. Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance. But this is only one suite of testing. Scientific Linux is supposed to give the best performance for scientifi purposes, i.e. for longhaul calculations, much numerical stuff. It outperforms in a typical server application FreeBSd, were "FreeBSD shoulkd have the power to serve". Is the postgresql benchmark the only way to benchmark? Well, this inspires me to gather together all the benchmarks someone could find. There were lots of compalins about FreeBSD's poor performance with BIND - once a domain of FreeBSD. Network performance seems also to be an issue if it comes to scalability. It would be nice to see what portion of the raw CPU/GPU power the OS (FreeBSD, Linux ...) delivers to scientific applications. I only know some kind of benchmarks, BYTE UNIX benchmark, LINPACK test =2E.. Does someone know a site to look for a couple of benchmarks to test= a) memory system b) scalability (apart from pgbench) c) network performance/throughput/network scalability d) portion of CPU performance the system delivers for numerical applications to the user apart from the system's own consumption e) disk I/O performance and scalability it would also be nice to discuss some nice settings and performance tunings for FreeBSD for several scenarios. I guess, starting developing benchmarking test scenarios for several purposes would lead faster to real numbers and non polemic than weird discussions ... --------------enigB1D490B63A11258175672D7F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO8RIfAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8dhQIANomh6qezYWsQVSYv3QYaLQR /ooQAaxCODCdunq3ZGmDl41YH3UTUvmOTpUoxTgSCeiycMRQW74DGm7mYHDb72hY 6PaxU2c5Ehh9bFT7TUsolZFHY0xHysHcQCpu9tqoj5hvuXAAZG6SO7PUxTDDyjAc VgWGaX3iYF0W3H1dNqYz4970Z1E1Zhb4X2rFvWkpPYEqinvNbwsz3YImeLCCVNVL r+nru3JMwwnu1XUSd7InYySbQFGW42YQ5hXwvc84NzbCR+pMGL3LYh9QIaZMlVtQ vgFjvMOSPWLCjJepq5jrMg7EiYUIRnTqVHDOJe4WgXxPzuzQq+s7UaMwEcabtWU= =8iuY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB1D490B63A11258175672D7F--