On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote: > I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc > -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially > considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make > conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as > it can. So I think it is important to establish why our apache > result were so poor and what can be done to fix it. "Our" Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use. There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results would have changed from our use of SELinux. Just another couple of gripes here, but I do agree with a previous poster that a well-thought out series of benchmarks and an explanation of their meaning would be far preferable to what Phoronix publishes. As a side note, (almost) anyone can take your blood and put it in a centrifuge, but it takes a specialist to tell you what the results mean for your health. ;-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
