On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:25 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > 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. However, back a few posts, someone tested with the Fedora packaged apache and reproduced the results - same result as Phoronix got, it was slow. The current thread thinking is that audit is the cause of this. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
