From nobody Sat Dec 11 11:20:19 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B4918E1BA9 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 11:20:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dmilith@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JB5101CrQz4mPH for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 11:20:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dmilith@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id f20so10830659qtb.4 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PAEWXVUPGGaf0tlhwostD9ciVBlKM8yHLz2sLKsXLTA=; b=XhTy9lRJ5eibuzAtklDa0uVGsSA9uXgBHaZnOaKu2oL8mwS+MERRKvRfSTkBIrAYMX B0wYCx2y690lLme9gP1R3STcPUwhdApYGatTUg0xPWoEDYYby16U2QqOfyC40QgaVsZg FPIWdvLjca8rwEeTcXG1kEG8WIUi+JACHbJjWklQaF36rZGMwUAOftNKRIYtPjoJIy5z UtQuwIdG1Js/w8qty3BHqDXm0BHC6FsAHnWtIHD2q5Xwvo1esimL++dnrOEIHwrnH4Yg /ld5ZDcehKcmojlTtdkogAGbtGq1ugyzIVxItvwQtczANwFumMGqD/BGUg6rUzr0igSv 0XOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PAEWXVUPGGaf0tlhwostD9ciVBlKM8yHLz2sLKsXLTA=; b=MqQ7+G/uYJV8NH3UXtXkn1yCoiOpKfOzry7rnY7prchkkvLez+Y4FexNKQgN0UEByv /4Cf+LMT6gTlcYMy0wEUBFoTIHRmDEEQbkYR30rR1z23DoUmWVlU2pfUoZOJJ9v1Bt5s VIgl9WV43pSPQKZMqVy4ae5Jso3ST7P6cx1theURSpOdsiBV56u2A8SzsorQHNw+0Ywn 8Y7DYjOI9uScCMtjvKDKrPgyCuAN3Wr1Tsl2zsQ0m6UGespov9Vh8BpYAdmMv8+EqXfl akLJB77ss3nUi8L6UMYhHQ00QJtcROm1D5TGOjoNCYo30R9HTFIWmMMrjWAXwZNrg1Gx w3WQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530pPz7/Eng7a23h21JpuTZEVbn+mjbjoFghRKySzbrt7UZLlXpi hjDVlJRRrZmnwopeKTjWiLEjiwiwV/gwYhmyKsw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOEJZAo/LNGlb0lHw3CeLFm2Xp8wsK28YPNr/xI37bxKEQHw9rE3AiCummddZ6gIZ5PqXAS/oAgBQt5fZwfV8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:494:: with SMTP id p20mr33089480qtx.644.1639221630241; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 03:20:30 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <47ca4ab6-52cf-8dbe-a1f0-7db13a8f605d@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <47ca4ab6-52cf-8dbe-a1f0-7db13a8f605d@quip.cz> From: "dmilith ." Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 12:20:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Benchmarks: FreeBSD 13 vs. NetBSD 9.2 vs. OpenBSD 7 vs. DragonFlyBSD 6 vs. Linux To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: "beepc.ch" , FreeBSD Current Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa903205d2dd062e" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JB5101CrQz4mPH X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: Y --000000000000fa903205d2dd062e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 --000000000000fa903205d2dd062e--