On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 08:32 Uhr, schrieb O. Hartmann
<[email protected]>:
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 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.
Why SciMark?
SciMark FreeBSD : Oracle, Mflops
Composite 884.79 : 844.03 (Faster: FreeBSD)
FFT 236.17 : 213.65 (Faster: FreeBSD)
Jacobi 970.76 : 974.84 (Faster: Oracle)
Monte Carlo 443.00 : 246.27 (Faster: FreeBSD)
Sparse Matrix 1213.64 : 1228.22 (Faster: Oracle)
Dense LU 1560.39 : 1557.18 (Faster: FreeBSD)
The threaded I/O results (Oracle outperforms FreeBSD by x10 on one, by
x100 on another test)
or the disc TPS ( 486 : 3526 ) sure look worse and are worth looking
into.
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.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
-- Michael
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
