Kirk Strauser wrote: > Prepare to be flamed (not by me, but in general). The tests are littered > with comments like: > > Missing data in the above table signifies operations that were too fast > to measure correctly by the bonnie++ program. > People will wonder why you chose not to increase the number of files being > tested so as to get meaningful results. Viewers are left looking at a > mostly-empty table where the BSDs dominate the results by a large margin, > but are told: Id really didn't occurr to me until it was already to late (too many systems were benchmarked already). > Linux clearly wins the IO throughput test, having a score upto about > 130% better than nearest BSD, either by having a better SCSI driver, or > because the system itself is just faster. > > Since you didn't *publish* any results were Linux won, I'll have to assume > that your private data demonstrated a different conclusion. And what do you call the results of bonnie++ sequential IO output test (in the table)? :) This is what I was reffering to in the cited text. > You describe your custom FreeBSD 5 kernel as keeping the WITNESS options. Really? Where do I say that? The RELEASE kernel of FreeBSD are without WITNESS, and my CUSTOM kernel was based on it. The options I gave were the differences between CUSTOM and GENERIC. > In NetBSD, you say: > > Because of my clumsiness with the installer, or the presence of some > bugs regarding modifying a FreeBSD partition setup, I wasn"t able to > partition the drive as intended, but instead the default partition > scheme was used. > > Full stop. End of test. You're now comparing bananas to pencils. I admit NetBSD was sort of an afterthought, but do you really mean that the physical position and of the /bench slice would affect the tests in significant ways? Even if the bonnie++ results are completely invalid, other results remain valid. > Basically, you ran some tests on divergent systems and got some results, but > that's about the only conclusion I was able to get from it. You're perfectly entitled to :)Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 14:22:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:50 UTC