While I'm glad for FreeBSD they're showing good numbers again, their testing of PostgreSQL in this study is rather odd. The results are using the read-only tests from sysbench. You can see from its sourceforge page [sourceforge.net] that sysbench is a MySQL benchmarking tool that has some rudimentary PostgreSQL support bolted on top. That particular code is so bad that the last time I checked, turning on the write OLTP tests deadlocked the PostgreSQL server, as it wasn't putting statements into transactions correctly (whi
While I'm glad for FreeBSD they're showing good numbers again, their testing of PostgreSQL in this study is rather odd.
Agreed, on both points. What I want to know though, is where this performance improvement, and 7.0 in general, leaves Dragonfly BSD... do they still feel that Dragonfly's choice to split off at 4x and start making radical changes is paying off? Is dragonfly making progress towards better performance, in general, or on particular workloads?
The dev of Dragonfly BSD has switched its aim from being 'a better way to do SMP' to 'SSI clustering' so I doubt that Dragonfly BSD is going to compete with FreeBSD in SMP scalability anytime soon if ever.
Bogus PostgreSQL tests (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does this leave dragonfly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, on both points. What I want to know though, is where this performance improvement, and 7.0 in general, leaves Dragonfly BSD... do they still feel that Dragonfly's choice to split off at 4x and start making radical changes is paying off? Is dragonfly making progress towards better performance, in general, or on particular workloads?
I saw what Matt Dillon did back in Amiga days. I
Re:Where does this leave dragonfly? (Score:3, Informative)