Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:16 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "william wong" <beijing.liangjie@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hacker 101 Message-ID: <86fxwn877v.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com> (william wong's message of "Thu\, 24 Jan 2008 23\:11\:05 %2B0800") References: <84a208a0801232306k6a34134aqd549a1ba2160fe41@mail.gmail.com> <86bq7bwlot.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240456q3154de92me73e846df84d587a@mail.gmail.com> <86prvrv0b1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"william wong" <beijing.liangjie@gmail.com> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > "william wong" <beijing.liangjie@gmail.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86fxwn877v.fsf>