Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

"O. Hartmann" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.freebsd.performance,gmane.os.freebsd.current,gmane.os.freebsd.stable
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> <[email protected]> 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 almost 2 years old, it still manages to
>> out-perform the bleeding edge FreeBSD :-)
>>
> serenity# gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
> 
> serenity# uname -r
> 9.0-RC3
> 

For the underlying OS, as far as I know, the compiler hasn't as much
impact as on userland software since autovectorization and other neat
things are not used during system build.

From my experience using gcc 4.2 or 4.4/4.5 does not have an impact
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 be
compiled with CLANG, it should be possible to compare both also with
"bleeding edge" compilers, say FreeBSD 9/CLANG, Ubuntu 12/gcc 4.6.2.


>> Now, from what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that a lot of
>> people are still in abnegation...
>>
>> my 0.2c,
>>  - Arnaud
>>
>>> 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 than inacceptable and by just reading those
>>> benchmarks, I'd like to drop thinking of using FreeBSD even as a backend
>>> server in scientific and business environments. In detail, some of the
>>> SciMark benches look disappointing. The overall image can't help over
>>> the fact that in C-Ray FreeBSD is better performing.
>>>
>>> From the compiler, I'd like say there couldn't be a drop of more than 10
>>> - 15% in performance - but not 10 or 100 times.
>>>
>>> I'm just thinking about the discussion of SCHED_ULE and all the saur
>>> spots we discussed when I stumbled over the test.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Oliver
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO6u3hAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8TCsH/1Aqj3f2K3XC7u6sDI8GlXn6
OK0v5A6UrlGHHWGz6mrJ60EeH8406T/e2eA1E0iRJotQwGdr0Rvpcm+J0bxcqom8
uBVJ/yXLFyiGT3GZR7t27/wrTRXRV9yYlxqaYs9zvTf2e9rUO4ttqx69yNV5SuSI
9wzkqqA8AmctorRrpyj2wVt0iNUFzFFPSBz/REj9vJOjdFPGdqWJwKUVDeEBQrny
q/4lZjhmNX5qeeC2/enceYRgN3FjeYjSqHJ2JHw7qKPnYWYF3r7/J7A0A/es2G6b
KQjBTs5xfUvnVwyu2gCQoFpNQ92S5kiq6KDZs+RQ6jaQUxBrEwdWHruOGLj2OIg=
=+AbL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.