On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:15:27AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
> > like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not actually
> > measure what he assumed they would.
>
> and he was open to get patches to remedy those problems.
>
Hah. That's why he did not update his site since 2003. Do you realy think
that OpenBSD 3.4 and 4.6 are the same?
> general dislike of any benchmark in the world is also part of the
> openbsd culture just like some qualities of misc@ (although it's been
> quite quiet lately).
>
> if the numbers were better, the general sentiment would
> be rather different i believe.
>
Actually, I think that bad sentiment comes from the article itself:
OpenBSD 3.4 was a real stinker in these tests. The installation
routine sucks, the disk performance sucks, the kernel was unstable,
and in the network scalability department it was even outperformed
by it's father, NetBSD. OpenBSD also gets points deducted for the
sabotage they did to their IPv6 stack. If you are using OpenBSD,
you should move away now.
With this he proofed himself as non credible and uninterested in serious
measuring.
> linux is faster in many respects (just look at zaurus) so what?
and in many it is slower or plain unusable without further hacks.
It mostly depends on what you need, so choose your tool wisely.
> i dont use openbsd for its speed, but on the other hand i dont
> downplay the importance of measuring things up and comparing it
> with the others once in a while. i am sure speed in the end is
> of councern, otherwise the os woudln't be in C but, whatchamacallit,
> python.
>
The reason for C has nothing to do with speed.
> some things can be measured actually quite easily: how much content
> a web server serves (not that much without sendfile()), how do the
> databases perform, etc, this is all benchmark in the end, and the
> programs doing the benchmarking are actually the daemons themselves.
> so there, everyone is benchmarking 24/7 :]
>
And here again comes this style of uninformed dumb rant. Why do you think
a web server will not do that much without sendfile()? Honestly it is
exactly the opposide, a web server that never touches the disk for content
delivery will outperform all others and can server enough data to fill a
gigabit link. sendfile() is no magic pill, sure it saves work and helps
increasing the performance but it still needs to get the data from the
disk at one point which is very slow.
--
:wq Claudio
