Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[N V]

21.12.2011, 04:28, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de>:
> On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>>  On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>>  On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>>>  http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>>>>
>>>>  PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
>>>>  and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
>>>>
>>>>  Sam
>>>>
>>>>  On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky <igor at hybrid-lab.co.uk>wrote:
>>>>>  Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>>>>>  criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>>>>>  benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
>>>>>  benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
>>>>>  numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
>>>>>  world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
>>>>>  platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
>>>>>  "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
>>>>>  making this statement, but someone has to!)
>>>>>
>>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>>  Igor M :-)
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>>>>>  http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>>>>>  To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>  Thanks for those numbers.
>>>  Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is
>>>  still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place
>>>  when it comes to a comparison to Linux.
>>>  Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance.
>>  Preface to my long post below:
>>
>>  The things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work
>>  can you get out of Thing".  This is VERY DIFFERENT from testing
>>  interactivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when
>>  Thing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how
>>  much interaction is lost in Thing X".
>>
>>  The reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual,
>>  in an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all
>>  else.  Nobody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld
>>  they go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find
>>  that the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed
>>  has gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY
>>  delayed, to the point where interactivity is crap.
>
> I whitnessed sticky, jumpy and non-responsive-for seconds FreeBSD
> servers (serving homes, NFS/SAMBA and PostgreSQL database (small)).
> Those "seconds" where enough to cut a ssh line. Not funny. Network
> traffic droped significantly. X/Desktop makes the problem visible,
> indeed. But not seeing it does not mean it isn't there.
> This might be the reason why FreeBSD is so much behind when it comes to X?
>

Well... Are you talking about FreeBSD being laggy with the X and other GUI staff? Well, am I so lucky to have great responsiveness and interactivity here in X with the FreeBSD? The interactiveness was one the reasons I've switched my desktop from Windows to *nix (specifically FreeBSD).

>>  I just want to make that clear to folks.  This immense thread has been
....

Regards,
Vans.