From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 03:27:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584CB16A4CF for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:27:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m22.mx.aol.com (imo-m22.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E478B43D1F for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:27:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from TM4525@aol.com) Received: from TM4525@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.7.) id g.b9.4739edca (16633); Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:27:20 -0400 (EDT) From: TM4525@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:27:19 EDT To: kris@obsecurity.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5112 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.2.1 Performance Woes X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:27:23 -0000 In a message dated 9/29/04 7:02:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kris@obsecurity.org writes: >See the Early Adopter's Guide that was distributed with 5.2.1, or just >don't worry about it and update to 5.3 which has vastly better network >performance. > >Kris I'll post some numbers after trying it. But its pretty frightening to think that one release has such major changes. Sounds like (yet another) crapshoot. I'd have hoped that 5.whatever would be better than 4.anything simply as a matter of course. But 4.9 is slower than 4.7 and I can't help but worry that its just all downhill from here on. To think that its taken 18 months to get to be more than twice as slow as what was before is pretty discouraging. Nor can I have even the slightest bit of confidence that something so different than the previous release is going to be as "stable" as everyone seems to be claiming.