Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: Mike Horwath <drechsau@Geeks.ORG>, NOC Prowip <tec@mega.net.br> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x Message-ID: <20061014203002.36248.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Mike Horwath <drechsau@Geeks.ORG> 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. > > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and > such. > > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 > systems. > > > All platforms are going to be 64bits and > memory of 4GB or more is > > not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs > support already 16MB. Even > > most professionals are not using SCSI anymore > but Sata-II. > > I disagree. > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like > SCSI. Let's just look > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other > benefits of SCSI. You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones that just came out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get maximum performance. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061014203002.36248.qmail>