On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> With Uniprocessor things are a lot more equal.
> but we still suck on netbench.
>
> This is due to the exact form of netbench which is exactly nonoptimal for
> FreeBSD.
I'm not interested in benchmarks. I'm interested in real-world
performance and real-world operational work done over units of time.
> Also becaosue of the GKL (Giant Kernel Lock) (see Solaris's results)
I know about the SMP issues. But in many applications going to SMP is
actually a reliability AND throughput lose (web servers is one example).
You're better off with 4 machines than 1 big 4-way machine.
> So don't assume that NT figures must be bad..
> we have too many weaknesses in our own code to throw stones.
>
> It'd be intersting to see how FreeBSD 1.1.5 would have performed on the
> same tests. Sometimes we've gained in general performance but lost in
> some specific cases.
Anyone can tune a kernel or OS for benchmarks. I'm a lot more interested
in how it all works in the real world since you don't run benchmarks when
you're trying to get real work done.
--
--
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Web: fathers.denninger.net
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
