freebsd stable - Aug 2016 - Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11

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.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:02:15PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov
wrote:
> 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.
Ok, then FreeBSD is just 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/20160823/9557c1ee/attachment.sig>