Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on [1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva= riable leaves it in the default configuration 'in the way the developers or= vendor wanted it for production'. This is by rule. However, i= nvariable the community or vendor for platforms that post poor scores on be= nchmark cry foul about using the default config. 'it should be tuned,= no-one deploys an untuned system' or 'the system is configured for a diffe= rent workload'. The response from us to this comes in two forms. &nb= sp; 1) If it is the wrong workload for the platform, do a public pos= t explaining and analysing the results. Highlighting the rationale fo r the concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with ba= rriers suffer in some write benchmarks for the sake of filesystem integrity= . 2) If tuning can have a material impact on the results, post a t uning guide with step by step and rationale. Ie: educate the communit= y and users. Michael and I have had many discussions with vendors an= d communities on this. In almost all cases, the vendor has either cha= nged the default configuration or accepted the results as valid. As = a service to the community or vendor that publishes the tuning guide, Micha= el is more than willing to redo a tuned vs untuned comparison. To dat= e, the communities have never taken us up on that offer. In part, thi= s affects [2]Phoronix.com's perception in the public, but that is more of a result of a one sided d= iscussion by a party external to a particular community (with a healthy tou= ch of journalisticly pumped compare & contrast). For the FreeBSD community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs public c= omparisons of FreeBSD against anything? Matthew -- Sent from my HP Pre3 _________________________________________________________________ On Jan 4, 2012 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com&g= t; wrote: Hi, On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM,= <matthew_at_phoronix.com> wrote: > Thanks. > &= gt; My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchma= rk to > ensure expected behaviour. > Why should you= have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle Server install ? If = not, you should not have to tune the FreeBSD install, that wouldn't b= e fair. If you tune FreeBSD, you should tune the Oracle Server instal= l too. It is pretty easy to win at least 30% in performance for certa= in workload by choosing the right kernel configuration. = - Arnaud > The installation, execution and comparison agai= nst the benchmarks in the > article is fairly simple. >= > Note that some tuning may not be relevant or recommended (ie: s= ome of the fs > benchmarks are sensitive to barriers and other syn= chronous operations). I'd > recommend bowing out of a benchm= ark with a 'we're going to be slower since > the default configura= tion is this way for the following reason' if this is > the case.= > > Thanks 'someone'. > > Matthew > > > Dec 16, 2011 8:46 AM, Adrian Chadd <a= drian_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > Can someone please write= up a nice, concise blog post somewhere > outlining all of this?= > > Extra bonus points if it's a blog that is picked up = by > blogs.freebsdish.org and/or some of the other BSD sites. > > Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at sh= iny blog > sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we = lost that > battle. :) > > > >= Adrian > _______________________________________________ &g= t; freebsd-performance_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.fre= ebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, se= nd any mail to > "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" <= br> References 1. 3D"http://Phoronix.com"/ 2. 3D"http://Phoronix.com"/Received on Wed Jan 04 2012 - 21:31:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC