Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:26:42 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Some initial postmark numbers from a dual-PIII+ATA, 4.x and 6.x Message-ID: <20050206132642.GP163@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050205193557.61595A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050203233735.24282F-100000@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050205193557.61595A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Robert, > This would seem to place it closer to 4.x than 5.x -- possibly a property > of a lack of preemption. Again, the differences here are so small it's a > bit difficult to reason using them. Thanks for the result. I'm quite dubitative now : I thought this was a fact that RELENG_5 have worse performances than RELENG_4 for the moment, partly due to lack of micro-optimizations. There have been indeed numerous reports about weak performances on 5.x. Seeing your results, it appears that RELENG_4, RELENG_5 and CURRENT are in fact very close. What should we think then ? -- Jeremie Le Hen jeremie@le-hen.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050206132642.GP163>