From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 6 13:27:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD0716A4CE; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:27:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postfix4-2.free.fr (postfix4-2.free.fr [213.228.0.176]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B4F43D1D; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:27:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix4-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E12C2BC3EC; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:27:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DD595407C; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:26:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:26:42 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20050206132642.GP163@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Some initial postmark numbers from a dual-PIII+ATA, 4.x and 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:27:06 -0000 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