> > The acticle is NOT a rant at all. It simply an analisys of a scalability test-suite.
> 
> And that justifies you calling me a liar... how?

That has nothing to do with me calling you a liar.

You wrote "When I posted Gregory McGarry's benchmark recently, a lot of (FreeBSD :)
people cried that microbenchmarks are useless...", that did not happen as anyone interested could 
see from freebsd-performance mailing list archive. That's why I call[ed] you a liar.

Nobody said benchmarks are useless. Microbenchmarks have a place, but they do not reflect 
performance of an operating system. In particular, the suite in question shows scalability of some 
resource allocators. That's what you were told.

Also, you asked me to google who you are. I did. Now what?

I feel sorry for you, but you started this. First by posting an email "Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats 
FreeBSD 5.3 in server performance" to freebsd-performance, then by claiming that LOTS of folks told 
you microbenchmarks are USELESS.

Don't spread FUD, don't lie and you won't be a target of stupid flame-threads that waste eveyone's 
time.

Again, you still did not provide anything to back your claim about NetBSD beating FreeBSD (besides 
LSR). LSR is a nice thing and large frames are helpful, but it's not something I would call server 
performance. In fact, be it a server or a workstation NetBSD will be faster on LSR. However, a 
typical server opens more than one connection (often over multiple interfaces) and does more than 
just pipe data through. Hence, LSR is similar to a microbenchmark. If I would be a part of project 
that won LSR, I would too promote this as an achievement, there is nothing wrong with that. 
However, it does not prove that YOUR point.

The funny part that it's possible that NetBSD would beat FreeBSD [at least] in UP configuration. 
But you NEVER BOTHERED to run normal benchmarks such as SPEC, TPC etc.

Posting something stupid and starting a flame war is that much easier.

Do you understand why I called a liar now?

Igor.