On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:43:27AM +0200, Robert wrote:
| On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:15:27 +0200
| frantisek holop <minusf@obiit.org> wrote:
|
| > hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that
| > > like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not
| > > actually measure what he assumed they would.
| >
| > and he was open to get patches to remedy those problems.
| >
| > general dislike of any benchmark in the world is also part of the
| > openbsd culture just like some qualities of misc@ (although it's been
| > quite quiet lately).
| >
| > if the numbers were better, the general sentiment would
| > be rather different i believe.
| >
| > linux is faster in many respects (just look at zaurus) so what?
| > i dont use openbsd for its speed, but on the other hand i dont
| > downplay the importance of measuring things up and comparing it
| > with the others once in a while. i am sure speed in the end is
| > of councern, otherwise the os woudln't be in C but, whatchamacallit,
| > python.
| >
| > some things can be measured actually quite easily: how much content
| > a web server serves (not that much without sendfile()), how do the
| > databases perform, etc, this is all benchmark in the end, and the
| > programs doing the benchmarking are actually the daemons themselves.
| > so there, everyone is benchmarking 24/7 :]
| >
| > -f
|
| In the end it boils down to measuring the different OS on the hardware
| you will use for the task they should fullfill, nothing else matters in
| the end.
I would say the most important thing is whether or not your solution
is up to the task you hand it. Be it with MS-DOS 3.1 or with OpenBSD,
I tend to want things to work and have enough scalability for (a bit
more than) estimated future growth.
Benchmarks are great to measure the effects of patches designed to
improve performance, not to pick the tool for the job at hand.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
