From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 07:59:11 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 EFEE21065672 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:59:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from nm37-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm37-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.132]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B03938FC12 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm37.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Dec 2011 07:46:13 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.35] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Dec 2011 07:46:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Dec 2011 07:46:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 137557.69753.bm@smtp103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: MDf8xAMVM1mfb2E27ymcozVpfFXWzTho_r1OWxttib0SFkX m4U8QbmANUpfvO03YVT3qL2JL7UzmBA1InIC91xVMpwabs_.VgAXxqtSygAU BrLM4HdaiRDhCb3F8p3cyuXe8axanaE7QZiQ3tkhM5.gH3.NCBCt_RKqzDzP JRqmWhYldJLT3B4p5avvRlQo8fzB0mN4VecGYkUtot797lzuU6E3k2N98lMF GJq5meqJu2qdHEGjKqQusmsw71OoJ6dssJpad2BxrVQXFnoS3IuQfNwKi6b6 hNwJfV3VnxAkToAjJr6Fqi2Oub2ctcJb09atv3xdxz29Xny9cjvNPiw35L_G _3AJ0ReoTDuNfCA1LpEqCjbr_p29P4_cjqOENHPFW5WIqLBlRnstEpysRXwZ BNZjanDa2fBiWoD2pfo6gvoEyzxC2Xe0tbWTTWy9x4M.u.Av8XDvJDwGcjgO E.VOXeRGPAQBxq0MMlBSv0z6JjCCxz8zxudQHv2BzlPYYJmlHVfvO8DiVzBy NdvCpgitemKba.nT9ARy8Ll_BaH0_ X-Yahoo-SMTP: iDf2N9.swBDAhYEh7VHfpgq0lnq. Received: from [192.168.119.20] (se@81.173.148.77 with plain) by smtp103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2011 23:46:12 -0800 PST Message-ID: <4EF18EBC.9050103@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:46:04 +0100 From: Stefan Esser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Smith 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> <6140271.20111219122721@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20111220033328.I64681@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20111220033328.I64681@sola.nimnet.asn.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Chadd , lev@freebsd.org, "Samuel J. Greear" , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , "O. Hartmann" , Jeremy Chadwick 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:59:12 -0000 Am 21.12.2011 06:22, schrieb Ian Smith: > I find the results on this page very strange, but perhaps indicative: > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_kfreebsd_h210&num=1 > > Here we see scant difference in results between Debian running FreeBSD > 7.3 or 8.0 or Linux 2.6.32 kernels, yet native FreeBSD 7.3 and 8.0 > installations apparently run far slower, especially on the gzip test! You did not expect this, since all user space programs were compiled from identical sources, as were FreeBSD and kFreeBSD (probably with minimal deviations in kFreeBSD, which should not affect the results)? > Does this imply that given the similar kernel speed, Debian GNU userland > performs so dramatically better than FreeBSD userland? Or does it > perhaps point to the default tuning of the FreeBSD systems compared to > (here) Debian, for these particular tests? Indeed, `which gzip`? Well, the answer is quite simple: Just run the Linux binaries on FreeBSD or kFreeBSD (those compiled for testing Linux performance) and I'm convinced that you'll find that performance significantly improves. You did notice, that the 7-zip and gzip binaries were built with gcc-4.4.4 for Linux and with gcc-4.2.1 for FreeBSD? And another point: The relative advantage between FreeBSD and Linux is different on R52 and T61. Might it be the case that gcc-4.4.4 has better knowledge of the newer CPU in the latter (T61, Core 2 Duo) and optimizes for it, not for the CPU in the R52 (Pentium-M) anymore? And apparently 7-zip results are less affected by the compiler version than the gzip results. This also hints at the compiler as the reason for the better kFreeBSD and Linux results. (7-zip seems to be less dependent on the better optimization of the newer gcc, or it does not take as much advantage from it.) Funny is the finding, that gzip is measured slower on FreeBSD 7.3 than 8.0 on the Pentium-M, while it is faster on 7.3 on the Core 2 Duo. That does not match my expectations at all ... There are no technical reasons, that FreeBSD does not come with a newer GCC, as probably all in this list know. But OTOH, the newer GCC versions can easily be installed from a port or package, and thus it would not have been impossible to compare native binaries compiled with the same compiler version for all test cases. > And yes, FreeBSD could sure use some sort of tuning 'profiles' mechanism > to be able to preconfigure systems for at least several vastly different > types of workload. Nate Lawson used to talk about this, then in respect > to simple 'laptop vs desktop' scenarios, but we've since seen volumes > written, mostly in lists but some wikis, parts of the Handbook, guides > for performance tuning etc, scarcely accessible to J. Random Installer. > A set of tunings for these Phoronix benchmarks might be a good start? I doubt that tuning is responsible, because kFreeBSD performed better (with the test programs compiled with gcc-4.4.4). The benchmark measured just that, the better optimization of the newer gcc version. Install the port (perhaps an even later gcc version, gcc-4.5 is said to generate even better code than gcc-4.4) and make it the default compiler for ports, if you want to take advantage of the more advanced compiler. The FreeBSD ports system makes that very easy. BTW: Why don't we build binary packages with a later version of gcc than what is in the system. This should not cause any GPLv3 violation, and we could have the userland built with the compiler giving best performance ... Regards, Stefan