Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:52:21 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Dag-Erling Coidan Sm?rgrav <dag-erli@ifi.uio.no> Cc: mark@vmunix.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD shines..[Fwd: Re: semaphore speed] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971105154430.1816A-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpbtzz2ico.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
yes of course, but: what we are looking at is the differences, in order to try work out the dependencies.. note that cache size seems to be important, and so does memory speed. slower machines are often outperforming newer ones. this is not a benchmark per-se. but rather, a tool to try work out the average speeds of these function of various OSs to see if they should be included for a particular function under SAMBA. What is intersting that in doing this we discovered these massive dicrepancies. Which I thought might be interesting.. On 5 Nov 1997, Dag-Erling Coidan Sm?rgrav wrote: > > [long discussion about benchmark results in Linux/FreeBSD deleted] > > [Tons of boring and meaningless benchmark results deleted] > > Has it occurred to any of you that your benchmark results are > irrelevant unless you run the Linux and FreeBSD benchmark on the > *exact* same machine? Only then can we start comparing figures. Even > then, you have to have a comparable degree of customization in each OS > to be able to draw any conclusions; it doesn't make sense to compare a > production FreeBSD installation with a custom kernel and a vanilla > RedHat installation with a generic kernel. > > -- > * Finrod (INTJ) * Unix weenie * dag-erli@ifi.uio.no * cellular +47-92835919 * > RFC1123: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971105154430.1816A-100000>