Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1

21.12.2011, 04:28, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>:
> On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> ⒖n Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>> ⒖n 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>>> 帉ttp://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>>>>
>>>> ⒗ostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
>>>> 嵻nd Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
>>>>
>>>> ⒚am
>>>>
>>>> ⒖n Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk>wrote:
>>>>> ⒐nterestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>>>>> 嶤riticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>>>>> 嶅enchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
>>>>> 嶅enchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
>>>>> 徱umbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
>>>>> 愙orld"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
>>>>> 忛latforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
>>>>> 騢criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
>>>>> 彲aking this statement, but someone has to!)
>>>>>
>>>>> ⒊heers,
>>>>> ⒐gor M :-)
>>>>> 嵖______________________________________________
>>>>> 巁reebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
>>>>> 帉ttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>>>>> ⒛o unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>>> ⒛hanks for those numbers.
>>> ⒐mpressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is
>>> 恾till impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place
>>> 愙hen it comes to a comparison to Linux.
>>> ⒈lso, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance.
>> ⒗reface to my long post below:
>>
>> ⒛he things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work
>> 嶤an you get out of Thing". ⒛his is VERY DIFFERENT from testing
>> 幈nteractivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when
>> ⒛hing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how
>> 彲uch interaction is lost in Thing X".
>>
>> ⒛he reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual,
>> 幈n an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all
>> 嶶lse. ⒕obody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld
>> 惗hey go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find
>> 惗hat the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed
>> 帉as gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY
>> 嶫elayed, to the point where interactivity is crap.
>
> I whitnessed sticky, jumpy and non-responsive-for seconds FreeBSD
> servers (serving homes, NFS/SAMBA and PostgreSQL database (small)).
> Those "seconds" where enough to cut a ssh line. Not funny. Network
> traffic droped significantly. X/Desktop makes the problem visible,
> indeed. But not seeing it does not mean it isn't there.
> This might be the reason why FreeBSD is so much behind when it comes to X?
>

Well... Are you talking about FreeBSD being laggy with the X and other GUI staff? Well, am I so lucky to have great responsiveness and interactivity here in X with the FreeBSD? The interactiveness was one the reasons I've switched my desktop from Windows to *nix (specifically FreeBSD).

>> ⒐ just want to make that clear to folks. ⒛his immense thread has been
.....

Regards,
Vans.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"