Anatomy of Perfomance tests
jcigar at ulb.ac.be
Fri Jun 29 09:41:48 UTC 2012
On 06/29/2012 11:00, Fred Morcos wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Wojciech Puchar
> <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>> Most probably all filesystems were used with defaults.
>> MAYBE softupdates, but not even sure for this. Compare this to linux which
>> is async-like. Comparing with UFS+async would be more fair.
>> Still - FreeBSD default MAXPHYS in param.h is far too low. i change it to
>> 2048*1024 (default is 128*1024) and improvement on handling large files is
>> huge. I run that setting everywhere. No problems.
>> I already talked about it on forum but was ignored.
>> As for scientific processing it should not depend much from OS at all, but
>> for sure it depends on crappy compiler that Juniper wanted...
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> I would not worry too much about what this guy says. Judging from his
> interpretations of the plots, he doesn't seem to know much about the
> benchmarks he is running and why they behave that way on the different
> systems. I think he just runs and publishes everything that says
> benchmark on it, without truly understanding what's going on or even
> going through the effort of providing fair comparisons.
> That said, I think that the Linux kernel performs better simply due to
> wider adoption (larger developer base, wider set of use-cases, etc)
> and thus a higher chance of getting performance improvements.
Note that stability matters too.
I remembered a bench on PostgreSQL where Linux was faster, but at some
point the machine had to be rebooted because it became unresponsive.
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
No trees were killed in the creation of this message.
However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
More information about the freebsd-questions