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>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:14:23PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:> 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.No. All debugs in amd64 is off at time of BETA.
> 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.I don't know what was going on in these particular tests, but in a more recent benchmarking run -https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd11-clang-gcc&num=1 - you're seeing the result of openmp being disabled in base. The clang maintainer for src refuses to include libomp as required for -fopenmp because nothing in base requires it. I certainly can't speak for the community as a whole - but based on my experience when discussing new features that adversely impact networking performance my impression is that out of the box performance is generally not a priority. -M