Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11

[Fernando Herrero Carrón]

Many ports offer an option to compile with optimized cflags. See for
instance http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/ffmpeg:

     OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=off: Use extra compiler optimizations

though:

     SSE=on: Use SSE optimized routines

It turns out that optimization options are usually off by default, so
binary packages will be built without them. It is an interesting question
whether they should be enabled by default. On the other hand, a generic
distribution cannot assume specific processor capabilities, for instance
the newest SSE or AVX, so binary distributed packages will, in general,
never be as performant as specifically built ones (some software packages
do runtime CPU detection though). That is one of the reasons why I use
FreeBSD and why I always build my own ports.

Cheers,
Fernando

2016-08-24 12:07 GMT+02:00 Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli at schema31.it>:

> Il 2016-08-23 22:55 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
>
> > The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD
> > 11. Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants,
> > witness) options enabled which make it significantly slower than
> > release versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a
> > desktop. It just feels much slower.
> > No.
> > All debugs in amd64 is off at time of BETA.
>
> Ok, then FreeBSD is just slower...
> you missed the main point. The test was done with applications compiled
> with unknown options. If you want to find out the impact of an
> operating system on you application you have to use the same compiler
> with the same options on all platforms. Basically, it was a compiler
> test named operating system benchmark.
>
> OK, now I get your point. You mean he's doing an Operative System test
> using an application, that is something that involve an additional
> complexity.
>
> I get your point, but, er... I suppose he's using pkg to install the
> ports or apt-get to install the packages. I mean I suppose he's lazy
> enough to compare binaries vs binaries.
>
> Now what you're telling me is "it's not a kernel comparison, it's an
> application over a kernel comparison" and I agree with you, but why
> should a casual reader be interested in a kernel comparison? Or, in
> general, what would you do with a kernel without an application? :)
>
> Sorry, I don't want to sound polemic, neither start a flame or anything,
> I'm just curious... And I understand clearly the philosophical
> differences between a Base BSD system and a Linux Distribution, but
> again I'm a simple person, I just stick the FreeBSD cd in, install and
> then do pkg install unzip. If it's slower than my colleague using Ubuntu
> and doing the same thing I just feel sad :)
>
> So the first outcome everyone thought about was "The RC is slower
> because of debugging?". No. Then the next question that pops into my
> mind is "The ports are slow because the binaries are compiled with the
> wrong options?".
>
> Thanks for your clarifications.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>