Rik van Riel wrote:
> > How about a real benchmark?
>
> Good question indeed. All proposed benchmarks in this thread
> have been geared heavily towards one system or the other and
> are not at all "industry standard" benchmarks.
>
> > At www.spec.org I see SPECweb99 numbers for Solaris, AIX,
> > Linux, Windows, Tru64, and HP-UX. FreeBSD must be hiding,
> > because I don't see it. BSDI, Walnut Creek, and WindRiver
> > all have failed to submit results.
The problem with this, as has already been pointed out, is
US$800; this is a volunteer project: are you volunteering?
> > Go on, show some numbers. Stop hiding.
>
> *nod*
>
> We can all brag about our performance being better than
> the others, but unless some actual numbers on a standardised
> benchmark are being published, it's nothing more than just
> bragging and bullshitting each other.
Alll I really give a damn about is making my application work;
I could never do that without a source-available OS for which
my strategic modifications do not have to be released in
source form, so that basically limits my choices considerably.
> If FreeBSD's performance is as good as people say (which I'm
> not doubting, at least as far as the realistic claims go),
> then where are those impressively high specweb numbers? ;)
I have posted a really cut down version of my real application
requirements as a proposed benchmark.
If you want high SpecWeb numbers, you should look at the
AfterBurner Web server, which, AFAIK, has only ever run
on FreeBSD.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message