Subject: Re: Thread benchmarks
To: Bernd Ernesti <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <email@example.com>
Date: 09/29/2007 12:43:19
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:04:24 +0200
Bernd Ernesti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:42:08PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> > Andrew Doran wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > >
> > >> It would be interesting if you could include x86 Solaris in
> > >> future benchmarks.
> > >
> > >It would be a brighter place if you stopped pushing people around
> > >and weren't such a deadweight. How about you benchmark it?
> > >
> > Andrew, there's a lot of merit in including Solaris10/OpenSolaris
> > benchmarks in the result as that's where a lot of big databases run
> > today...numbers from [Open]Solaris are much more relevant in this
> > type of measure than OpenBSD - they're only relevant
> > if we want to see want NetBSD 2.0 or older was like.
> Darren, thats maybe a reason for a benchmark and not how Perry did ask
> in his usual way (I can understand Andrews response).
I saw nothing wrong in how Perry asked. Look at the text above -- he
simply remarked that it would be interesting. It also isn't reasonable
to say "you do it" when the goal is to get comparable numbers -- you
want the same test setup, which Andrew has.
I took the remark to be more a reaction to past interactions with Perry.
> Andrew, thank you very much for all the work you are doing here.
Indeed, on this and other matters. My thanks, too.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb