Hi all, just a thought here: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel_at_digsys.bg> wrote: >> As were told, Phoronix used "default" setup, not tuned. > Not really. They created some weird test environment, at least for FreeBSD > -- who knows, possibly for Linux as well. > > For example, ZFS is by no means a default file system in FreeBSD. You need > to go trough manual steps, to enable it, to build the pool, filesystems etc. .. Of course the benchmark setup and procedure is strange but.. it could be improved, I think. Have a good collection of tuning parameters for "popular cases", advertised properly so it gets hard "to miss them". I am a sysadmin and, over the years, I had to run file servers, database servers, web servers, tomcats... Well, most of the time I set it up and "it just works" because the system in question is not maxed out, not even close to it. But if I want to squeeze the last 20% out of it googling starts, and here and there I find hints how to tune the OS, the file system, what scheduler to use etc. It would be great to have a set of case studies at hand, e.g. under the /usr/share/examples directory, that describes tweaks to have a performing postgresql server, or mysql, or apache or a desktop or.. Things I find, for example, in the BSD Magazine. Maybe benchmarks become more meaningful then.. A general remark for people doing benchmarks for comparison: you need a well-informed system engineer for the systems you compare. So, if you compare a Linux system with FreeBSD, have two experienced admins that know their OS well. Regards PeterReceived on Mon Dec 19 2011 - 23:54:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC