Originally posted by david.given
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Benchmarking Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD
Collapse
X
-
Phoronix always test the default settings of each OS/distro. Guess what would happen if this wa not the case. Others would complain that you should enable this and not that and others the oppossite. So the default settings is the best option since that's what the users have when they install the system. Most of them afterall stay with the default settings for ever.
Comment
-
FreeBSD's UFS is well known for it's speed with soft updates enabled. It should have been enabled. Using FreeBSD's UFS without soft updates is like using ext4 with extents turned off. I would even be so bold as to say that Debian's installer is broken if the default is to have soft updates disabled. BTW, I have been running a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD server since Lenny was still in testing.
Originally posted by Apopas View PostMost of them afterall stay with the default settings for ever.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tux9656 View PostTrue if the user uses Windows or Mac OS X, or some other non-FOSS OS. FOSS OS's are designed to be tweaked and hacked. In fact, that's why most people use FOSS OS's. On a server, you will rarely ever go with the default install options, since most servers have a specific role, and you would want to tweak your server for that role. I do see your point for the sake of a comparison, but I sure hope you didn't intend that as a general statement.
So the default options, maybe is not the best options around, but is something objective and at least it satisfies the default user.
At least there is phoronix global around, to test our tweaked systems.
Comment
Comment