From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 27 06:48:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7361065673; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:48:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oleg.moskalenko@citrix.com) Received: from SMTP.CITRIX.COM (smtp.citrix.com [66.165.176.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CA98FC14; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:48:55 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,481,1336363200"; d="scan'208";a="29561071" Received: from sjcpmailmx02.citrite.net ([10.216.14.75]) by FTLPIPO01.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 27 Jun 2012 02:48:54 -0400 Received: from SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net ([10.216.4.73]) by SJCPMAILMX02.citrite.net ([10.216.14.75]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:48:54 -0700 From: Oleg Moskalenko To: 'Doug Barton' , Gabor Kovesdan Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:48:53 -0700 Thread-Topic: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT Thread-Index: Ac1ULJ2cJkllmWK1Q6yjHt8LuolkWwAAdJCA Message-ID: <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A3012CA28AEB6D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> References: <4FEAA280.2070705@FreeBSD.org> <4FEAA599.9070107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4FEAA599.9070107@FreeBSD.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: RE: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:48:56 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 PM > To: Gabor Kovesdan > Cc: FreeBSD Current; Oleg Moskalenko > Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT >=20 > On 06/26/2012 11:04 PM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > as I announced before, the default sort in -CURRENT has been changed > > to BSD sort. >=20 > Has this been performance tested vs. the old one? If so, where are the > results? Of course it was performance-tested. As this is a totally different program= with different=20 algorithms, it has totally different performance profile on different tests= , comparing to the old sort. In the default compilation mode (single thread s= ort)=20 the performance is on the same level as the old sort (sometimes faster, som= etimes slower).=20 The new sort is often significantly faster in numeric sort tests. In "exper= imental" multi-threading=20 mode, the new sort is much faster than the old sort on multi-CPU systems. The sort speed comparison is not actually fair because the old sort cuts so= me corners and=20 has a number of bugs. The concrete figures do not have much sense because you change the sort fil= e and you get a totally=20 different performance ratio.=20 >=20 > > Since the import, the reported minor bugs have been > > fixed and BSD sort has passed the portbuild test. If you encounter > any > > problems or incompatibility with the old GNU version, please report. >=20 > Has this been thoroughly regression-tested against the old version, > option by option? Of course we have the regression tests. We have an overnight test that runs= through=20 probably 17 millions various sort option combinations. But we actually had= to compare=20 the new sort against a fresh GNU sort implementation (version 8.15), becaus= e the old BSD GNU sort=20 is very buggy and testing against the old GNU sort has no sense. Oleg