Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3

On Thursday 06 January 2005 10:28, Richard Coleman wrote:
> Robert Ryan wrote:
> > Fellow FreeBSD developers,
> >
> > I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable.
> >
> > Check this out: http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/
>
> Well, even though this link was submitted by a troll, the benchmarks are
> actually pretty interesting and worth reading.  Just keep the following
> in mind:
>
> 1. Although NetBSD did perform better on many of the benchmarks (kudos
> to them), but the difference is usually not dramatic.
> 2. The benchmarks are strictly uniprocessor benchmarks.
> 3. The author does admit at the end of the article that NetBSD still
> uses a big, giant lock around the kernel and the benchmarks might be
> very different on a multiprocessor system.
> 4. The benchmarks are only NetBSD versus FreeBSD, so it's hard to judge
> where the performance of each system fits in the grand scheme of things.
>   It could be that both systems are performing very well.  The
> benchmarks need to include at least one non-BSD system (usually Linux)
> in order to get some perspective.
> 5. It would have been nice if FreeBSD 4.10 and NetBSD 1.6.2 were also
> include, so we could see the relative progress (or lack) of each system.
>
> But it's worth reading.  Data is always a good thing.  Just don't get
> hung up on them.  Hopefully, it will inspire more comprehensive tests.
>
> Richard Coleman
> rcoleman_at_criticalmagic.com
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"

So how does FreeBSD usually fit into the grand scheme of things?
I'm not trolling, really, I love FreeBSD...I'm just new and curious...
-- 
Richard Cadwalader