Since I received mostly negative comments on the whole thing, I'm considering doing myself a favour and taking it off public access, although I *still* think that the benchmark is valid under its goal, and I will defend it as such. But 'm willing to learn :) Just for argument sake, if I ever do something like this again, what should I do to make it better? So far, I've got: - Increase the number of files for bonnie++ (I agree) - Don't use bonnie++ at all (I disagree - what else to use?) - Enforce same partition/slice size for NetBSD (I agree) Until such opportunity, are there any suggestions about what to do what the current article? - Remove bonnie++ filesystem results? - Remove NetBSD from the article? What suprises me that nobody's disputing bytebench - I thought its results were far more interesting... :)Received on Thu Apr 08 2004 - 02:22:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:50 UTC