Re: Benchmarks: FreeBSD 13 vs. NetBSD 9.2 vs. OpenBSD 7 vs. DragonFlyBSD 6 vs. Linux

Maybe FreeBSD wouldn't win but results would be much closer. It's also
known that default compiler options for ports aren't best. Default
sysctl.conf default settings aren't best. They could at least compile all
the benchmarks with the same compiler features. So -ffast-math, -flto and
-O3 + code hardening features, for all tested systems. It's also
professional to mention the compiler used (I recall that the previous
Phroenix "benchmark" was done using GCC on FreeBSD which I'll not even
comment).

I could go on with all mistakes made in this "benchmark", but well, I know
- benchmarking is hard.


On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 12:01, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote:

> On 11/12/2021 11:17, dmilith . wrote:
> > 1. Where are compiler options for BSDs?
> > 2. Why they compare -O2 to -O3 code in some benchmarks? Why they enable
> > fast math in some, and disable it for others?
> > 3. Why they don't mention powerd setup for FreeBSD? By default it may use
> > slowest CPU mode. Did they even load cpufreq kernel module?
> > 4. Did they even care about default FreeBSD mitigations (via sysctl)
> > enabled, or it's only valid for Linuxes? ;)
> > 5. What happened to security and environment details of BSDs?
> >
> > It's kinda known that guys from Phroenix lack basic knowledge of how to
> do
> > proper performance testing and lack basic knowledge about BSD systems.
> > Nothing new. Would take these results with a grain of salt.
>
> It is very simple - they are comparing OSes with setting they are
> shipped. Average users don't know about tuning so the benchmark is
> reflecting what many average users get.
> And to be honest - I don't think FreeBSD will win even with everything
> best tuned.
>
> Kind regards
> Miroslav Lachman
>


-- 
Daniel Dettlaff
Versatile Knowledge Systems
verknowsys.com