From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 24 17:27:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B0616A41A for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:27:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CE913C4DB for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:27:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED71A2087; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:16 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: -0.2/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765DC2085; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4A6F0844AF; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:16 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: "william wong" References: <84a208a0801232306k6a34134aqd549a1ba2160fe41@mail.gmail.com> <86bq7bwlot.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240456q3154de92me73e846df84d587a@mail.gmail.com> <86prvrv0b1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com> (william wong's message of "Thu\, 24 Jan 2008 23\:11\:05 +0800") Message-ID: <86fxwn877v.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hacker 101 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:27:28 -0000 "william wong" writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav writes: > > "william wong" writes: > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not > stable or does not perform or what? FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7 took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as fast as 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP. (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 since 4 had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread support) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no