From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 10 07:10:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EA41065703 for ; Sat, 10 May 2008 07:10:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A243E8FC1B for ; Sat, 10 May 2008 07:10:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m4A7AeJ8058737; Sat, 10 May 2008 09:10:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m4A7AbDd058734; Sat, 10 May 2008 09:10:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 09:10:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Matthew Seaman In-Reply-To: <4824CEE7.6070605@infracaninophile.co.uk> Message-ID: <20080510090439.U58698@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <482473B7.7070707@pixelhammer.com> <48248AC9.5060507@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4824CEE7.6070605@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: DAve , 'User Questions' Subject: Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 07:10:45 -0000 >> and what most unix users do. > > It is what a lot of unix users have done historically, but now that there is and still most do. > It's not a "Unix way" versus "Other OS Way" thing -- its a response to the > change > in direction hardware development has taken over the past several years. > Chip on multichip hardware you can do many different things too - even faster as it's spread over cores. > and > how much cache RAM there is on each chip. 4 cores and 8MB is just the latest > step in that evolutionary arms race. that's much better than "more gigaherts" way. any unix should support it good - with any kind of load. today i see performance improvements are mostly towards synthetic benchmarks like running 8 threads of mysql server. it looks cool on paper, but we need good performance when running concurrently many different things. if one plan to use single one program - why unix at all? as i've tested 7.0 once, it was on same computer noticably slower under high load of different programs. now i read 6.* is slower than 4.* (i never user 4.*) isn't it something wrong with it?! > It depends very much on the application load you have to support and the sort > of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that are all > the > rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threaded > applications. did you actually made a comparision with 6.*? not with "paper benchmarks" but just run 100 different things and check how responsive machine is.