Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:57:30 +0200 From: "Claus Guttesen" <kometen@gmail.com> To: "Artem Kuchin" <matrix@itlegion.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler selection for web hosting Message-ID: <b41c75520710041257p3309c5bel765f4b9df8d202f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <009a01c806bc$5c7021d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> References: <009a01c806bc$5c7021d0$0c00a8c0@Artem>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 7-current amd64 is actually seems to be VERY stable on hardware and > software we use, so, we want to move it to production servers and > want to get max perfomance from it for web hosting. > > So, what is the difference between the two? Which seems to be better > for hosting? Is ULE bugfree and stable enogh for this? I'm using ULE on my 8-way HP DL360 and current as of Sept. 29'th. 2007. Works like a charm. Use ufs2 (rather than zfs atm.). -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b41c75520710041257p3309c5bel765f4b9df8d202f>