From nobody Sun Dec 12 19:03:18 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3267018D4C75 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:03:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net) Received: from bosmailout06.eigbox.net (bosmailout06.eigbox.net [66.96.184.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JBvDg3Cxcz3sYv for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:03:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net) Received: from bosmailscan01.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.1]) by bosmailout06.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1mwU84-0004AV-RN for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:03:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codenetworks.net; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:Subject:From:References:To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To: Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6+d64sIgYn/A8VeLhg4zA74EOlvKVHizwGhlQw17U3I=; b=GS+prJtoofQm3SbkdRarcv1zXV zjv1HZNxl9yL9Y8upqtfUHc/G2k1Rh5JqhdQDN5od9pEXejOpbQatBVwYdaCJl4CbtD0d2TkPt+Iq c9oz+nLYx3O1Rwuze8lcRyyhRj4IOp4FOdUo4aBZaodMjmuFWM1mQpFsHo6Kz1uu9VkWfW7JXCpoL B+4DX/g1j3GDGV4ItFHIOMFi//xRnqltHRNYitcKN9IohcbeEs0ZMo56/AhocTWN35uqGEvvqqWiu 2FsLjDIM7gyfhGZdaLKszHmKDG0XPvjgpYGqgLxj16JXZzKMpWpBx7dYL7nMeiddhwgGyTpgNIn2g qwopht9g==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan01.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1mwU84-0005JX-Ew for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:03:24 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp19.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.19]) by bosimpout13 with id VX3M260040QhFXN01X3Qhk; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:03:24 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=RNUo47q+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9UqFsMnAB6EOkiq4MrOclQ==:117 a=Ek/qOh1uPkKSHvd30yk7rg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=IOMw9HtfNCkA:10 a=-Yl_685HdVUA:10 a=T_zuiYmE3fyN60bNvLYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Received: from cm-81-9-194-73.telecable.es ([81.9.194.73]:26463 helo=[192.168.1.100]) by bosauthsmtp19.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1mwU80-0001ek-TX for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:03:21 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 20:03:18 +0100 List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Content-Language: en-US To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <47ca4ab6-52cf-8dbe-a1f0-7db13a8f605d@quip.cz> From: Santiago Martinez Subject: Re: Benchmarks: FreeBSD 13 vs. NetBSD 9.2 vs. OpenBSD 7 vs. DragonFlyBSD 6 vs. Linux In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EN-UserInfo: d3bdfab0736480cedf04ed92aaea2ef5:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: sm@codenetworks.net X-EN-OrigIP: 81.9.194.73 X-EN-OrigHost: cm-81-9-194-73.telecable.es X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JBvDg3Cxcz3sYv X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=codenetworks.net header.s=dkim header.b=GS+prJto; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of "SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net" designates 66.96.184.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.39 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.35)[-0.355]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:66.96.128.0/18]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[codenetworks.net: no valid DMARC record]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[codenetworks.net:~]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.96)[0.963]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[66.96.184.6:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_PERMFAIL(0.00)[codenetworks.net:s=dkim]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[sm@codenetworks.net,SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[81.9.194.73:received]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:29873, ipnet:66.96.128.0/18, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[sm@codenetworks.net,SRS0=ytTNz9=Q5=codenetworks.net=sm@eigbox.net]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi there, sorry for the ignorance, but which are the best settings for sysctl? I guess, it depends on the workload that one is executing, right? But based on the emails, I understand some basic ones can be applied to help with general applications, am I right? If that's the case, can we attempt to list them? I am happy to create a list, document and categorize them based on workloads, I believe it will be a good starting point for normal users (like me). I do have a small list of sysctls that I usually apply, but they are all mostly related to networking and particular to our client's setup. Best regards. Santi On 12/11/21 12:20, dmilith . wrote: > Maybe FreeBSD wouldn't win but results would be much closer. It's also > known that default compiler options for ports aren't best. Default > sysctl.conf default settings aren't best. They could at least compile all > the benchmarks with the same compiler features. So -ffast-math, -flto and > -O3 + code hardening features, for all tested systems. It's also > professional to mention the compiler used (I recall that the previous > Phroenix "benchmark" was done using GCC on FreeBSD which I'll not even > comment). > > I could go on with all mistakes made in this "benchmark", but well, I know > - benchmarking is hard. > > > On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 12:01, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > >> On 11/12/2021 11:17, dmilith . wrote: >>> 1. Where are compiler options for BSDs? >>> 2. Why they compare -O2 to -O3 code in some benchmarks? Why they enable >>> fast math in some, and disable it for others? >>> 3. Why they don't mention powerd setup for FreeBSD? By default it may use >>> slowest CPU mode. Did they even load cpufreq kernel module? >>> 4. Did they even care about default FreeBSD mitigations (via sysctl) >>> enabled, or it's only valid for Linuxes? ;) >>> 5. What happened to security and environment details of BSDs? >>> >>> It's kinda known that guys from Phroenix lack basic knowledge of how to >> do >>> proper performance testing and lack basic knowledge about BSD systems. >>> Nothing new. Would take these results with a grain of salt. >> It is very simple - they are comparing OSes with setting they are >> shipped. Average users don't know about tuning so the benchmark is >> reflecting what many average users get. >> And to be honest - I don't think FreeBSD will win even with everything >> best tuned. >> >> Kind regards >> Miroslav Lachman >> >