From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 29 13:31:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884C814E54 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:31:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA45724; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Seth Cc: Terry Lambert , Jonathan Walther , jesus.monroy@usa.net, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Linux vs. NT, take 2.] In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:22:57 EDT." Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:29:51 -0700 Message-ID: <45720.930688191@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Is there any validity to the discussion on -hackers that real-world > application performance doesn't corroborate the poor benchmark results > (as far as FreeBSD is concerned)? I'm less concerned that benchmarks Plenty. Netbench is notorious for not actually testing the load balancing abilities or performance degradation curve as the number of users increases, both important factors in "real life" testing. Unfortunately, real-life testing is not easily quantified and so we have netbench instead. Until somebody writes something better, that will be the benchmark to jury-rig your responses for in order to come out ahead on benchmark tests. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message