Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:15:28 -0600 From: Ken Gunderson <kgunders@teamcool.net> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmarks: AMD64 vs i386 on Dual 246 Opteron Message-ID: <20050729021528.35d1a3e4.kgunders@teamcool.net> In-Reply-To: <1122621854.66245.0.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <3.0.1.32.20050728013152.00a4d188@pop.redshift.com> <20050728193519.A66123@cons.org> <20050728231659.36bdfcd5.kgunders@teamcool.net> <1122621854.66245.0.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:24:14 +0200 Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Ken Gunderson píše v čt 28. 07. 2005 v 23:16 -0600: > > > Document Path: / > > Document Length: 2846 bytes > > > Document Path: / > > Document Length: 7951 bytes > > Is it just my impression that you served two completely different > websites in the test? Doesn't make it much trusty. Not completely different. Same ROR app w/Identicle configuration on both machines. Same db backend. As I pointed out initially, the size of the requests on the i386 machine were larger (because that site actually has a bit of content), wh/ I doubt is responsible for the legacy hardware serving up approx. double the requests/sec. as the dual opteron. The ROR app is Typo. i386 front page <http://blog.truebrewin.com>; (My 70 yr. father's 1st blog, please be merciful). The amd64 was just default front door w/ o any content. This wasn't intended as a scientific study. Like I said, it was just something I happened to be doing in another context and posted here since it fit the general profile of 2x that the op was reporting. I'm sure BOTH machines could do better but I was curoius about a +/- oob scenario. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050729021528.35d1a3e4.kgunders>