Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:33:40 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x Message-ID: <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > --- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> > wrote: > >> Quoting Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> (from Thu, 12 >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): >> >> [moved from security@ to performance@] >> >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still not >> competitive replacement for >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported >> hardware - I speaked about >>> performance in some situation and believe in >> it's stability. >> >> You can't be sure that a committer has the >> resources to setup an >> environment where he is able to reproduce your >> performance problems. >> You on the other hand have hands-on experience >> with the performance >> problem. If you are able to setup a -current >> system (because there are >> changes which may affect performance already, >> and it is the place >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) which >> exposes the bad behavior, >> you could make yourself familiar with the pmc >> framework >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure >> jkoshy@ will help if you >> have questions) and point out the bottlenecks >> on current@ and/or >> performance@ (something similar happened for >> MySQL, and now we have a >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without such >> reports, we can't handle >> the issue. >> >> Further discussion about this should happen in >> performance@ or current@... >> >> Bye, >> Alexander. >> > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > knows: In how ever many years of development, > there is still no good reason to use anything > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > performance advantage in real world applications > with multiple processors, and the performance is > far worse with 1 processor. > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > otherwise won't change it. > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc.. Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's what people do, and that's the beauty of open source. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?452E6054.8000604>