On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:46AM +0200, Andrea Brancatelli
wrote:> Il 2016-08-21 08:45 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
>
> > I am sure that some know of this site:
> >
> >
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
> >
> > I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my
> > machines, a stupid question. Are there still some debugging aids
> > enabled in 11?
> > They're off in those versions, but did note compiler (and compiler
> > args) differences between within most tests (See attachments) as you
> > mentioned.
> the benchmark then compares the off-the-shelve distributions.
>
> Excuse me, as a casual reader of the list, I don't get this
"critique".
>
> I never recompile my installations, I just use them from the
> installation CD (as probably 90% of the rest of the world), so I don't
> get what is wrong with the approach of comparing an out-of-the-box
> FreeBSD 11 with an out-of-the-box Ubuntu whatever.
>
> If FreeBSD 11 "out-the-box" performs slow because the standard
compilers
> options aren't good it's not a problem with the benchmarking
platform
> but with the default CD compiling options.
>
> Am I getting it wrong?
The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
options enabled which make it significantly slower than release
versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a desktop. It
just feels much slower.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20160822/cf07043b/attachment.sig>