21.12.2011, 04:28, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de>: > On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> šOn Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: >>> šOn 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote: >>>> šhttp://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved >>>> >>>> šPostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux >>>> šand Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided. >>>> >>>> šSam >>>> >>>> šOn Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk>wrote: >>>>> šInterestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on >>>>> šcriticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative >>>>> šbenchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to >>>>> šbenchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any >>>>> šnumbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real >>>>> šworld"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two >>>>> šplatforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and >>>>> š"criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in >>>>> šmaking this statement, but someone has to!) >>>>> >>>>> šCheers, >>>>> šIgor M :-) >>>>> š_______________________________________________ >>>>> šfreebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >>>>> šhttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >>>>> šTo unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >>> šThanks for those numbers. >>> šImpressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is >>> šstill impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place >>> šwhen it comes to a comparison to Linux. >>> šAlso, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance. >> šPreface to my long post below: >> >> šThe things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work >> šcan you get out of Thing". šThis is VERY DIFFERENT from testing >> šinteractivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when >> šThing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how >> šmuch interaction is lost in Thing X". >> >> šThe reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual, >> šin an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all >> šelse. šNobody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld >> šthey go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find >> šthat the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed >> šhas gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY >> šdelayed, 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). >> šI just want to make that clear to folks. šThis immense thread has been .... Regards, Vans.Received on Wed Dec 21 2011 - 12:17:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC