From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 4 19:57:32 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FDC16A468 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:57:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AE313C4B9 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:57:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so462367ugf for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=OzkTg5W+VSCerGbZXpqURrlk8+MZcfhh8DQAOmCBpDM=; b=QbaFkwyARXWiqlgtTzr1nwTuWTMGhOIvs78jJxgueRi+rNkp+lLSU7DV9sYpd56N4J5vigY6i6LOZlNvLTAS4xLMbZbEjtG+PJVTGIx3KWFWMoA0JxvxyBad1jJ0Igyowc+PFAB8g17f0dRKNhQ5qwkc8Ro0F2jCMxqhErk3SLc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cR+Dtwo7who11PiojcI49UImRYtrmdzqjq+6Yk8xbH0V8czMGrrKJGJQbYQmTriMRNlO+uim+58CHsnRGz1vMujD5bLZV4TqTPXc4hbG5jfNDSSW0RuLCT4JdNBvBufHZtH894WXlV0OMqBTUvZK1flczeKB3c+UmqZIyxXwSZM= Received: by 10.78.204.1 with SMTP id b1mr8103683hug.1191527850219; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.146.10 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:57:30 +0200 From: "Claus Guttesen" To: "Artem Kuchin" In-Reply-To: <009a01c806bc$5c7021d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <009a01c806bc$5c7021d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler selection for web hosting X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:57:32 -0000 > 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