On Sat, Jan 08, 2005, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > > only real concern are the process creation/terminat
FreeBSD vs NetBSD from an other perpective:
http://www.cons.org/cmucl/platforms.html
PS.: I like both.
--
/Varga Péter/
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, David Malone wrote:
DM> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
DM> > Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
DM> > server that's drowning in context-switches?
DM>
DM> It will depend on how many processes you have ru
David Malone wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
server that's drowning in context-switches?
It will depend on how many processes you have running at any one
moment and how often
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
> server that's drowning in context-switches?
Probably not, but if you have a tolerance for doing profiling, loading
debugging code, etc, there may be other things we can do t
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
> server that's drowning in context-switches?
It will depend on how many processes you have running at any one
moment and how often processes are created/d
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:55:27PM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > > only real concern are the proce
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ceri Davies wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeB
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeBSD.
>
> I guess that this mi
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:40, Xin LI wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > only real concern are the process creation/termination results on
> > FreeBSD.
>
> I guess that this might worth inv
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeBSD.
I guess that this might worth investigating:
http://people.freebsd.org/~das/p
Am Freitag, 7. Januar 2005 09:58 schrieb Gerald Heinig:
> Hi Robert,
>
> the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems only.
> It says nothing about multiprocessor performance, which is what FreeBSD
> is aiming for.
> It's comparing apples with oranges.
No, many users, me included, only run
Hi Kamal,
I don't know about any switches for ULE. My point is that it's not
particularly meaningful to compare a system that's built for SMP to one
that isn't. There have been a number of tests (sorry, don't have time to
dig them all out) of systems with MP locks against systems without on a
u
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems
> > only.
> > It says nothing about multiprocessor performance,
> > which is what FreeBSD
> > is aiming for.
> Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch t
--- Gerald Heinig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems
> only.
> It says nothing about multiprocessor performance,
> which is what FreeBSD
> is aiming for.
Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure
that performance is optimal
Hi Robert,
the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems only.
It says nothing about multiprocessor performance, which is what FreeBSD
is aiming for.
It's comparing apples with oranges.
Cheers,
Gerald
Robert Ryan wrote:
Fellow FreeBSD developers,
I hate to say I told you but it was inevitab
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:57:26AM +, Robert Ryan wrote:
> I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable.
I think so Brain, but I don't think Netcraft has confirmed it yet?
--
Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog:
Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
Please don't treat this seriously. Benchmarks are just benchmarks. But
the benchmarks and comparison, widespreaded through sites like
slashdot or osnews, sometimes affect the interest and view point of
some new and potential users.
May be we should do some full benchmarks
PS: if I've offended anyone (yeah, I singled a few
out)
, prove me wrong, but spare me your insultedness.
It's become a pathetic hobby in -core.
Benchmark are made to be put into perspective, although everybody has a
right to say what he wants to say, this doesn't mean that you have to
say
Please don't treat this seriously. Benchmarks are just benchmarks. But
the benchmarks and comparison, widespreaded through sites like slashdot
or osnews, sometimes affect the interest and view point of some new and
potential users.
May be we should do some full benchmarks as an answer and to rev
20 matches
Mail list logo
