Freebsd Theme Song

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
>Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:13 PM
>To: Danial Thom
>Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway
>Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 06:33:49AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote:
>
>> > > But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of
>> > > tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP
>> > > performance is dismill across the board.
>
>> > This statement is simply false.  It's actually
>> > quite funny to read.
>
>> Whats "false" about it, Kris?
>
>I've quoted it again for you above.  When you take your packet
>bridging blinders off, there are many performance improvements to be
>measured from SMP kernels (and UP, for that matter) on FreeBSD 6.0
>compared to 4.11.  Filesystem performance, for one.
>
>FreeBSD 6 is 30% faster than 4.11 at filesystem write operations
>(extracting a large tarball full of small files and many
>subdirectories) with an amr disk array on the same UP system.  On this
>hardware FreeBSD 4.11 is unable to make effective use of a second CPU
>on the same test (it's often slightly slower); FreeBSD 6.0 receives a
>10-15% boost on this workload from a second CPU (this seems to be
>limited by hardware access constraints - the amr hardware API does not
>encourage concurrency).
>
>Performance on a benchmark that does a lot of parallel filesystem
>reads and forks tens of thousands of processes (ports collection INDEX
>builds) is 25% faster on 6.0 than 5.4, and is about 3 times faster
>under SMP than UP on a 4-CPU machine.
>
>On a 4-CPU amd64 machine running 6.0, concurrent write performance to
>a md is 2.7 times faster under SMP than UP.  On a 14-CPU sparc64
>machine it is 6.1 times faster (and it would be higher except the very
>low memory bandwidth and 400MHz CPU speed cause some of the kernel
>threads to saturate easily).
>
>But of course, Denial tells us that none of this means anything about
>FreeBSD performance and scalability, because it doesn't help him with
>the only thing he cares about, which is to sell systems that bridge
>high-speed networks.
>

Kris,

  To me, this argument sounds suspiciously like "I don't care that
networking
performance is slower because the shit in the OS that _I_ use is faster,
so
fuck all the rest of you who want faster network performance."

You, meanwhile, are criticizing Danial for in effect saying "I don't care
that
filesystem stuff is faster because the shit in the OS that _I_ use is
slower,
so fuck all the rest of you who are happy you have faster filesystem
performance"

Kind of pot calling kettle black, here.

If you are AGREEING with Danial that 5.4 and 6.0 networking performance
is SLOWER then 4.X performance, why are you HAPPY and CONTENTED
with this?  Is it now OK to speed up one part of the system at the
expense of
slowing down another part?  Sounds to me like the argument Microsoft
makes
that so what that Windows XP is slower than Windows 2K, it has lots of
better
eye-candy.

Ted