From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 18:05:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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 72E2816A417 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5DA43D53 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 73B91159035; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:18 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:18 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:19 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but > > > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but > > > also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems > > > are. > > > > Wow, I hope not. > > only a matter of time I guess, next year we will have 64bit > quad-cores and I am really not sure if anybody will build 32bit > versions ever again Again, I hope not. > > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and such. > > are this dinos still serving somewhere? > > > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 systems. > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... Ah, hardware bigotry. Your colors are showing. > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > becoming a valid option for small servers. And your testing methodogy was...what? Small servers? No, let's talk about 'servers', not just 'small servers'. Very high disk I/O requires more than NCQ and 10K RPM disks, though if you have a 'need' of disk space over performance, then SATA will be your bitch as the cost (vs size) of SCSI vs SATA do change things. Not all of us use small servers, though. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG