Hello, I just tried to run the recently added slog benchmark for
diskinfo on 11.1-Release. It works fine with ATA drives, but not with
NVMe drives. I get the following error
# diskinfo -vSw /dev/nvd0
/dev/nvd0
512 # sectorsize
400088457216# mediasize in bytes (373G
com>, Michael invariable leaves it in the
> default configuration 'in the way the developers or vendor wanted it for
> production'. This is by rule.
A quick question: why is ZFS used in the benchmark?
"Both operating systems were in their stock configuration aside from
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
>> ensure expected behaviour.
>>
> Why should yo
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:55 -0800
wrote:
>Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking
> on[1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva configuration 'in the way the
> developers or production'. This is by rule. However, i poor
> scores on be 'it should be tuned, is configur
developers or vendor wanted it for
production'. This is by rule.
However, invariable the community or vendor for platforms that post poor
scores on benchmark cry foul about using the default config. 'it should
be tuned, no-one deploys an untuned system' or 'the system is con
Thanks for the comment Arnaud. For comparative benchmarking on
[1]Phoronix.com, Michael inva= riable leaves it in the default
configuration 'in the way the developers or= vendor wanted it for
production'. This is by rule.
However, i= nvariable the community or vendor for platfor
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs the benchmark to
> ensure expected behaviour.
>
Why should you have to tune anything ? Did you tune the Oracle Server
install ? If not, you should not have to t
On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is
>> currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the idea being
>> to
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a
>>>>> look what can be improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some
>>>>> additional people which are willing to improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tun
reebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what
>> can
>> be improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people
>> which are willing to improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
proved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people
> which are willing to improve it.
> > > >
> > > > This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
> could be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
> v
; > > This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which
could be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
volunteers? A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it.
Other tuning sources are welcome too.
> > >
> > > Ever
ge is far from perfect and needs some
>>>> additional people which are willing to improve it.
>>>>
>>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could
>>>> be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any
>>
improve it.
>>>
>>> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could
>>> be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers?
>>> A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other
>>
age in the wiki - which could
> > be referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers?
> > A first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other
> > tuning sources are welcome too.
> >
> > Every FreeBSD dev with a wiki account can
ook what can be
> improved. The page is far from perfect and needs some additional people which
> are willing to improve it.
>
> This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could be
> referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers? A
&g
additional people which
are willing to improve it.
This is only part of the problem. A tuning page in the wiki - which could be
referenced from the benchmark page - would be great too. Any volunteers? A
first step would be to take he tuning-man-page and wikify it. Other tuning
sources are welcome too
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:29:25PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> This also interested me:
>
> * Linux system crashed
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg8.html
>
> * OpenIndiana system crashed same way as Linux system
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchiv
t we've since seen volumes
> written, mostly in lists but some wikis, parts of the Handbook, guides
> for performance tuning etc, scarcely accessible to J. Random Installer.
> A set of tunings for these Phoronix benchmarks might be a good start?
I doubt that tuning is responsible,
gt; > become popular over Internet.
> >
> > --
> > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov [2]
Self-selected, like a 'Standard & Poors' of the OS 'market'? :) People
who choose OS by fan base have already made their choice, and were never
'ours
; >
> > --
> > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
Self-selected, like a 'Standard & Poors' of the OS 'market'? :) People
who choose OS by fan base have already made their choice, and were never
'ours' to lose. Recall the Benchmark Battles bet
For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in question.
Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
Run the benchmark against those used in the article
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
You will be ask
The benchmarks themselves are versioned. So in general most of the
av= ailable versions of PTS itself should be fine. PTS can be
considered = an execution shell that doesn't affect the benchmark
itself.
Note th= at you'll download a pile of the benchmarks, build and
Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
>
> Run the benchmark against those used in the article
>
> phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
>
> You will be asked to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at the end.
>
> Mat
For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in question.
Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
Run the benchmark against those used in the article
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
You will
estingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>>>> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>>>> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
>>>> benchmark real world performance,
iours.
Benchmarking is a mucky business..
Note that the benchmarks with Phoronix test suite are repeatable, once
installed, you can just run "./phoronix-test-suite benchmark
1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37" to repeat (as close as the system allows) the
benchmarks that started this thread.
Is
Fly, Linux
> > and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> >>
t; Sam
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly)
estingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
> nu
On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world per
Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
numbers in relati
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow
> wrote:
>> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
>> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
>> found recently (my s
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Release engineering for FreeBSD produces SHA256 checksums for all
> official releases. AFAIK though they're only in the announcement emails and
> not stored anywhere else.
> I can't speak for OpenBSD's release process.
> Tha
On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
>> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
>> from.
>
> Check
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source
> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images
> from.
Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the correct
checksum
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
> found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is service (
> pub.allbs
gt; both platforms and reported only the read results. If you dig down
>> into the actual results,
>> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
>> see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
>> were both taken from the same
IMHO, no offence, as always.
As were told, Phoronix used "default" setup, not tuned.
So? Is average user will tune it after setup? No, he'll get same defaults,
and would expect same performance as in tests, and he probably get it.
The problem of FreeBSD is not it's default settings, some kind of v
wo Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
> were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
> writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
> bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
> ...
>
> Fr
s need to be fixed to represent reality rather than
> throwing half of the results in the trash. To be quite frank, "fixing"
> FreeBSD to look good on this benchmark will make it a worse real-world
> OS. But you guys go ahead and foot-shoot over these ridiculous
> benchmarks all yo
openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
bad thing when someone totall
On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Samuel.
> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>
>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer furt
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 16 декабря 2011 г., 20:43:27:
> Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
> sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we lost that
> battle. :)
My thoughts exactly.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
___
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this
> garbage. (Yes, I have been do
Thanks.
My request for the person documenting the tunings also runs = the
benchmark to ensure expected behaviour.
The installation, execut= ion and comparison against the benchmarks in
the article is fairly simple.<= br>
Note that some tuning may not be relevant or recom
> beyond 3% when SSE isn't explicetly enforced.
>
> More interesting is the performance gain due to the architecture. I
> think it would be very easy for M. Larabel to repeat this benchmark with
> a "bleeding edge" Ubuntu or Suse as well. And since FreeBSD 9.0 can
Can someone please write up a nice, concise blog post somewhere
outlining all of this?
Extra bonus points if it's a blog that is picked up by
blogs.freebsdish.org and/or some of the other BSD sites.
Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
sites with graphs rather than ma
Hi,
[resend on the ml, my bad]
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/16 Arnaud Lacombe :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>&
lls to be swapped out within seconds on systems
with background jobs writing to disk).
> More interesting is the performance gain due to the architecture. I
> think it would be very easy for M. Larabel to repeat this benchmark with
> a "bleeding edge" Ubuntu or Suse as well. And sin
2011/12/16 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
> wrote:
>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>
> it might be worth highlight
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news
Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + comp
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + compiler al
On 15 Dec 2011 21:25, "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> >> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> >> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more
co
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
>> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
>> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>>
On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>
Er... does ext4 guarantee data integrity?
You're not com
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, 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 stoc
rks "the system feels sluggish" is not
> measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark
> finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system freeze for the
> user for the duration of the test -- it will be considered "win"
rs the best performance available by turning
on the default FS by a standard stock installation.
Using ZFS on Linux would be a great disadvantage and the benchmark would
turn out the same bullsh... as comparing Linux-domain only with FreeBSD
weknesses only ...
Linux distributions offer setups fo
on 15/12/2011 14:29 Steven Hartland said the following:
> Having a quick look at those results aren't there a few annomolies e.g.
> THREADED
> I/O TESTER for Oracle reports 10255.75MB/s
>
> Which is clearly impossible for a single HD system meaning
> its basically caching the entire data set?
I
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 used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeB
27;re at a roadblock -- nobody so far is
absolutely certain how to "benchmark" and compare ULE vs. 4BSD in
multiple ways, so that those of us involved here can run such utilities
and provide the data somewhere central for devs to review. I only
mention this because so far I haven't se
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
u
differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load
whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience.
What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" is not
measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark fi
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, 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
>
g/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
> see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
> were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
> writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
> bad thing when someone
be possible with sysctl
and/or boot time tuneables, e.g. "vfs.hidirtybuffers").
And a last remark: Single benchmark runs do not provide reliable data.
FreeBSD comes with "ministat" to check the significance of benchmark
results. Each test should be repeated at least 5 t
And a last remark: Single benchmark runs do not provide reliable data.
FreeBSD comes with "ministat" to check the significance of benchmark
results. Each test should be repeated at least 5 times for meaningful
averages with acceptable confidence level.
The Phoronix Test Suite runs most tests a
o FreeBSD optimizes
writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
should
Having a quick look at those results aren't there a few annomolies e.g.
THREADED I/O TESTER for Oracle reports 10255.75MB/s
Which is clearly impossible for a single HD system meaning
its basically caching the entire data set?
Regards
Steve
It would be also nice to see whether compiling the kernel and the world
for the specific machine counts. I think it's an advantage of FreeBSD,
but never could do a benchmark comparing this.
Andras
15.12.2011 12:19 napján Michael Larabel ezt írta:
On 12/15/2011 05:02 AM, Steven Hartland
data; I can point you to tons of systems where the
data inserted there is nonsense, sometimes even just ASCII spaces (and
that is the fault of the system vendor/BIOS manufacturer, not FreeBSD).
Sometimes identical strings are used across completely different
systems/boards (sometimes even server-clas
Hi, all,
Am 15.12.2011 um 12:18 schrieb Michael Ross:
> Following Steven Hartlands' suggestion,
> from one of my machines:
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#sysctl -a | egrep "hw.vendor|hw.product"
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#dmidecode -t 2
> # dmidecode 2.11
> SMBIOS 2.6 present.
>
> H
Am 15.12.2011, 11:55 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
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,
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 the parsing
- 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 the parsing of some component strings isn't as
nice as Linu
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
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
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 hardware was used for each OS.
The pictur
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. A difference of a factor 10 or 10
On 14 December 2011 23:32, O. Hartmann wrote:
> 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. A difference of
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. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simply far beyond
disapointing, it is more
;drives on two SiI3124 SATA controllers. The OS runs off a gmirror
>>RAID-1.
>>
>>More details here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/zfs-benchmark.php
>>
>>First, up, I've done a simple bonnie++ benchmark before I add more
>>RAM. I ran this on two d
EASE #1: Tue Nov 30 22:07:59
EST 2010 on a 64 bit box. The ZFS array consists of 7x2TB commodity
drives on two SiI3124 SATA controllers. The OS runs off a gmirror
RAID-1.
More details here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/zfs-benchmark.php
First, up, I've done a simple bonnie
I3124 SATA controllers. The OS runs off a gmirror RAID-1.
More details here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/zfs-benchmark.php
First, up, I've done a simple bonnie++ benchmark before I add more RAM. I
ran this on two different datasets; one with compression enabled, one
without.
If anyone has
ay consists of 7x2TB commodity drives on
> two SiI3124 SATA controllers. The OS runs off a gmirror RAID-1.
>
> More details here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/zfs-benchmark.php
>
> First, up, I've done a simple bonnie++ benchmark before I add more RAM. I
> ran this on two
ror RAID-1.
More details here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/zfs-benchmark.php
First, up, I've done a simple bonnie++ benchmark before I add more RAM.
I ran this on two different datasets; one with compression enabled,
one without.
If anyone has suggestions for various tests, option set
We were also hitting the limits of ab, but instead of hacking Apache
sources we've ended up writing our own benchmark tool. With it we were able
to get up to 18k req/sec from Apache 2.2 (serving static content through a
custom module). Moreover, the tool is not bound to HTTP and can be use
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vote added.
One vote more...
Thank's!
--
Have a nice day ;-)
TooManySecrets
Dijo Confucio:
"Exígete mucho a ti mismo y espera poco de los demás. Así te ahorrarás
disgustos."
- Original Message
> From: Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:51:12 PM
> Subject: Re: ab2 (apache benchmark) problem
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1
On 23/04/2008, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Every now and then people are complaining about the bug in ab2 that makes
> > it unusable for benchmarking from FreeBSD (as a client). "ab2"
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Every now and then people are complaining about the bug in ab2 that makes
> it unusable for benchmarking from FreeBSD (as a client). "ab2" is a HTTP
> benchmark that's bundled with the Apache web serv
Hi,
Every now and then people are complaining about the bug in ab2 that
makes it unusable for benchmarking from FreeBSD (as a client). "ab2" is
a HTTP benchmark that's bundled with the Apache web server. I found the
apparent solution and I'd like to invite everyone
ave to admit I was confused about the purpose of the benchmark. I
am so used to seeing (usually bad) comparison benchmarks between
mysql and postgres that I mistook this for one. That's probably due
to me being a postgresql mailing list regular.
Not to say that PostgreSQL is the ulti
not a
limitation of mysql itself.
> Now this may well have been a version before 5.0.33. I'm not sure
> what OS was used either, I suppose it was either Irix or Linux.
>
> Now I am curious whether the same performance drop on Linux would
> occur with a postgres benchmark.
s may well have been a version before 5.0.33. I'm not sure
what OS was used either, I suppose it was either Irix or Linux.
Now I am curious whether the same performance drop on Linux would
occur with a postgres benchmark. It probably will, but if not it
seems like there's a pro
at all to any of the mysql
performance benchmarks and optimisation efforts that have being going
on recently.
Not to say that PostgreSQL is the ultimate benchmark instead of
mysql, just a better one. Of course they both have their uses, but
IMO mysql is loosing terrain fast.
Any benchmark which look
#x27;t going to matter
> much, no matter how many connections you have. Mysql doesn't scale
> very well to multiple cpu's.
This might be standard dogma, but it also appears not to be true:
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/mysql.html
> It doesn't compare[1] t
rry, couldn't resist...
This being mysql, the number of processors isn't going to matter
much, no matter how many connections you have. Mysql doesn't scale
very well to multiple cpu's.
I've had my doubts about this "benchmark" from the beginning of this
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
