From nobody Sat Dec 11 12:21:16 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 D78B318ED5F4 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 12:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 4JB6Mj5Xkdz3Bxt for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 12:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id a18so19224899wrn.6 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 04:21:53 -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=gI/rgcQZE2Jbbp4xAxN/P24ZmX+BItGcHJTIUKUpOi4=; b=PApacQJ9Uo4nulEZtZGhhVJxR1xFw2AGUAc58dc7sPBjrMT3Mo75yHBsM7od/UyH6M Zj5J0qOK+6wPY5Db9Tb/21E6MGwG2BRLaKwYWcwkbtp2brfNmu35xkyHqoLQPwYYd0e6 6xi2xA19kiNemCkTG6KgwcA391z7eJ+29nzUzdkLzLqM2uCp5Nm2d3UrrkMt0HqigwWM UwPjCBLvjzh7G8uIIJeMciPiwVsC9SpJzFaklbo1Sh6Otth1R0t7NtOMUFieJD6BQiuS 5x4gTXLVBUvSMgqi1KE+Ub2CrKrkM0pe7G0WFOS64ED7CQt9ZAZE94WpFHccUE58q5Ta HcrQ== 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=gI/rgcQZE2Jbbp4xAxN/P24ZmX+BItGcHJTIUKUpOi4=; b=z9MFZCjMyVD7NB1vkmFRtFY+f1krivQSoG/LAfv7bWN9jvYrQF+tkY6x+WlFy0fc58 9ARxDnN3ohs1ccGUnKtj1Tqy+YMOonKp2SLJaQEmlfUZ1+uPp1DX8H0BT3VkuzKdEyS4 OqLWbkAKwg3i6/86PbUtEse0f1XzE4H5i/jvjoYEuAgoq7KoPCNYPiHX5L7Nyqj/bO0s c4TCCGGiqyN/4jTv1l/b+nSALnA4S08lSn8Li9aJnVAq57cm3F5uMg0t4fIT2ppvpbR5 nbuOZNpr0lCv5k+WSnZIzGCkCeFBCVlR06jagMwlJ7wpBi5+ZOisyfikavrlRBiEX6p5 1RUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533q1Z55MTUVr43UqGgsHO2BMl3GxoeixklLbKmF26ELiqS62Kd5 Vq2qTr5pqNWrunVqXKzkkEug9LEkVcEoIU50/5s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzknqbiQhj5NFDyJuDjVN8lwvtrIlBYuwByuqz47I3qa/ZR6XOAS11rYUmcD8kO1nxvVfJ/h+h8mfGHFlyUU68= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:381:: with SMTP id u1mr20645809wrf.383.1639225312670; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 04:21:52 -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: In-Reply-To: From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 15:21:16 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Benchmarks: FreeBSD 13 vs. NetBSD 9.2 vs. OpenBSD 7 vs. DragonFlyBSD 6 vs. Linux To: Sami Halabi Cc: "beepc.ch" , FreeBSD Current Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000077f7b105d2dde2bd" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JB6Mj5Xkdz3Bxt X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: Y --00000000000077f7b105d2dde2bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can say that these "micro" benchmarks are not "so much" useful . When such comparisons are made based on "abstract" views , they DO NOT SHOW very much utility . Over previous years I am always stressing that proper comparisons would be based on a "specified" workload : Which distributions is more suitable for that "specified" work load ? Testing / benchmarking should be performed with respect to such criteria , for example , continuously "a day work necessary for a profession" , "a web server for a 'specified' task" , "a NFS server working for a 'specified' application" . Then comparisons of parts causing significant differences may generate useful improvement possibilities . When we see *BSD distributions as a single group , it is obvious that everyone has its own priorities to realize . The same is true also for Linux distributions . Without taking such differences into consideration , reaching some conclusions about them would only be a waste of time . With my best regards , Mehmet Erol Sanliturk On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:40 PM Sami Halabi wrote: > Hi, > I see these claims over and over. > So I must ask. > Is there any tunibg guide(s) to make the default not conservative in a > regrding to several use cases like using as web server? How to Utilize gp= u > maybe? > I know there are few network (aka routing / forwarding) guides.. but mayb= e > instead of that superior feeling "oh they are linuxish and knoe shit" may= be > better supply the tuning needed to get better results? > And I'm not talking to get an engineer to analyze the tests case.. > Maybe the linux defaults fit better for most use cases rather than being > conservative?? > > Just to be clear I almost not used linux and always freebsd for simplicit= y > usage.. but I must say it makes me wonder > > Sami > > =D7=91=D7=AA=D7=90=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9A =D7=A9=D7=91=D7=AA, 11 =D7=91=D7=93= =D7=A6=D7=9E=D7=B3 2021, 11:52, =D7=9E=D7=90=D7=AA beepc.ch =E2=80=8F: > > > > I am surprised to see that the BSD cluster today has much worse > > performance > > > than Linux. > > > What do you think of this? > > > > "Default" FreeBSD install setting are quite conservative. > > The Linux common distros are high tuned, those benchmark is in my > > opinion comparison of apples and oranges. > > > > Comparing "default" FreeBSD install with "default" Slackware install > > would be more interesting, because Slackware builds are at most vanilla= . > > > > > --00000000000077f7b105d2dde2bd--