Re: freebsd-current Digest, Vol 429, Issue 8

On 2012-01-05 21:03, kabaev_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800
> <matthew_at_phoronix.com>  wrote:
>
>> >      Thanks for the comment Arnaud.   For comparative benchmarking
>> >  on    [1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva   configuration 'in the way the
>> >  developers or   production'.  This is by rule. However, i   poor
>> >  scores on be   'it should be tuned,   is configured for a diffe   The
>> >  response from us to this comes in two forms.&nb   1) If it is the
>> >  wrong workload for the platform, do a public pos   explaining and
>> >  analysing the results.  Highlighting the rationale fo   r the
>> >  concious reduction in performance (ie: journaling filesystems with
>> >  ba   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   Michael and I have had many
>> >  discussions with vendors an   on this.  In almost all cases, the
>> >  vendor has either cha   default configuration or accepted the results
>> >  as valid. As    guide, Micha   comparison.  To dat   offer.  In part,
>> >  thi   public, but that is more of a result of a one sided d   party
>> >  external to a particular community (with a healthy tou
>> >  journalisticly pumped compare&  contrast).  For the FreeBSD
>> >  community, who else outside of the FreeBSD community actually runs
>> >  public c   Matthew
> Not really related to the discussion on hand, but the above about the
> most unreadable email I am yet to read on the public mailing list.
Yeah, I actually ignored it because of poor readability.

-- 
Twoje radio