4 ms·
Nevertheless thread-local storage (TLS) and Logical Volume Manager (LVM) functionality have been available under Linux (and probably other BSDes) for quite some
by ciupicri 14y ago
Nevertheless thread-local storage (TLS) and Logical Volume Manager (LVM) functionality have been available under Linux (and probably other BSDes) for quite some time.
So that benchmark is kind of wrong. What about the results for fewer concurrent clients? NetBSD seems to perform worse than (Scientific) Linux. Is it because of those resource limits?
- papsosouid 14y agoTLS is not a feature, it is a problem. It was added because of the very problems that started this thread. Modern linux software expect stupid crap like that, so NetBSD eventually feels forced to add it. The entire point is that BSDs try to avoid adding unnecessary complexity like that. The dragonfly benchmark doesn't give us any real info, so it is impossible to say what exactly the problem is. Clearly something is wrong though, given we already know netbsd made performance and scalability a major focus of the 5.0 release, and nobody has reported any regressions in 6.0: http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img13.html http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img13.html