On 01/04/2012 20:52, Matthew Tippett wrote: > > As a service to the community or vendor that publishes the tuning > guide, Michael is more than willing to redo a tuned vs untuned > comparison. To date, the communities have never taken us up on that > offer. In part, this affects Phoronix.com <http://Phoronix.com>'s > perception in the public, but that is more of a result of a one sided > discussion by a party external to a particular community (with a > healthy touch of journalisticly pumped compare & contrast). For the > FreeBSD community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually > runs public comparisons of FreeBSD against anything? If you just want to benchmark defaults, please, use proper defaults and don't do a *custom* ZFS setup (which was IMHO a pretty big and gross mistake). I would be interested in a benchmark that does significant tests with same hardware and REAL default setup. It would be awesome if those benchmarks were re-done that way, so we can compare an out-of-the-box experience even if that's not the last word on how a system will perform (as others said, no one uses a default setup for their servers) And, if anyone else suggests a tuned-system benchmark ... I'm ok with that too as long it's done properly and with guidance of a person of the community that can give proper advice. I'm a regular reader of Phoronix because it's basically easier than being subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, blogs and such just to get latest information on developments. And the site is fairly popular, so you hold a pretty big responsibility in there. I got really disappointed on how a bad benchmark could impact on the reputation of FreeBSD. Things that are not true that people will be repeating (not-so-long-ago I was a moderator on a Linux forum and I saw that misinformation in action, it's terrible !) Sorry if the words sound strong ... but I'm glad that these benchmarks can be re-done. Thanks for reading !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC