What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?

[Thomas Sparrevohn]

On Friday 08 October 2004 16:54, TM4525 at aol.com wrote:

A very simple request - I do respect peoples right to state their point of 
view - but there FreeBSD has through its entire life spam aimed (at least for 
the time I have been following the delvelopment - and that goes far longer 
back that I care to remember) stick to the scientific  view of the world. 

At set of facts has been provided and there are questions about their validity 
or for my personal perspective not about their validity - I am just trying to 
understand the difference - There has never been in my point of view nor will 
be within this group a need for settling differences by based on anything 
than sound facts 

If the measurement is a fault - then surely it is explainable - if the 
observation is correct then there is a point that needs to be addressed.

I will repeat what I have said before - FreeBSD for my stands for a strict 
Computer Science based approach to problem solving - and while everybody who 
has been in that world often feels the urge to let steam out - a reasonable 
tradition has establish that the best results are gained by dialogue

So everybody Please - Everybody participating (or almost all) are an asset for 
the development of FreeBSD - Ego's has clashed often enough an after 
returning to the world of FreeBSD it seems to me that the lesson has not been 
learned. 

Sorry to everybody else for the Bla Bla

> In a message dated 10/8/04 2:37:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tedm at toybox.placo.com writes:
> Kris and all,
>
>   Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls?
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt
>
> PS:  TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of
> the argument.  Not that we would believe them but you deserve to
> have to spend some time forging them up.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, so now anyone who questions your data is a Troll. Very convenient.
> The entire point of "believability" is the control, and the explanation of
> what the test actually tests. Thats the point of having a control, Ted.
> The test that was posted is not "believable" because it doesnt test
> anything  that would actually happen
> in the real world. Do you buy a car because it hit 180 on the track?
> Is a car that can hit 190 but gets half the gas milage a better car?
>
> You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is "going to be
> so great".  I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't
> have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done
> I'll test it.
>
> > > - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz
> > > fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine,
> > > with seemingly superior hardware, so slow?
> >
> > Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the
> > kernel.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Actually my traffic generator is in userland too, of course. I guess I'm
> just a better coder than whoever wrote your little benchmark. Or maybe
> the benchmark is too busy calculating stats to do the work its supposed
> to be doing. Another variable in the "test".
>
> > For this workload, yes.
> >
> > > It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP
> > > performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially
> > > improve SMP performance?
> >
> > Yes, and it's ongoing.  You don't see it on this workload, but there
> > are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to
> > hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly.
> >
> > > This seems to show the opposite.
> >
> > No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP.
> > Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks
> > on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP?
>
> You must be a democrat Kris, because you always spin what people say
> in a way such that is completely wrong when you say it. I said "the 99% of
> us who don't use SMP", which is much different from "no one uses SMP",
> isn't it? 1% of several million is not "no-one", is it?
>
> Frankly, I didnt expect SMP performance to be so poor in 5.x since
> improving it
> is a stated goal. So I guess you recommend that anyone running a network
> server use a single processor? Are the gains in mySQL greater that the 40%
> loss in network performance? When mySQL is performaning so aptly, is
> the machine capable of handling a network load also?
>
> You (Kris) seem to think I'm asking you these questions, but I'm really
> not, but I guess I'm surprised you keep answering since you clearly don't
> have any of the answers. I'm just hoping someone does, somewhere. Because I
> don't see how you can develop an O/S without benchmarking your specific
> changes along the way.
>
> The folks at LINUX are guilty of building an O/S to suit their benchmarks.
> Its equally disturbing to implement theory without making sure that the
> theory works as expected. I just hope that pounding packets through a
> socket  and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's
> arsenal.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"