On 12/20/2011 11:22 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
[performance@ & current@ ccs trimmed, I'm not subscribed. Feel free ..]
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov [1]:
> > Hello, Samuel.
> > You wrote 15 ÿÿ 2011 ÿÿ., 16:32:47:
> >
> >> Other benchmark
Any version is fine that's PTS 3.0 or newer in terms of being
compatible, since the test profiles are versioned separately and
automatically fetched to match the result file. However, I'd recommended
the newest (PTS 3.6) as it contains the best FreeBSD support at present
in terms of hardware/so
On 12/15/2011 08:26 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
journaling enabled
On 12/15/2011 05:02 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Michael Larabel"
I was the on that carried out the testing and know that it was on the
same system.
All of the testing, including the system tables, is fully automated.
Under FreeBSD sometimes t
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 08:32 Uhr, schrieb O. Hartmann
:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
the benchmark
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same
