Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 07:24:22 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of amd64 (versus i386). Message-ID: <20060408212421.GB720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060408203233.K67402@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <CBC0AAB4-EC80-44C8-BCCE-010DE99D4BC0@khera.org> <E1FRVcq-0004pJ-4c@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20060406192950.GE700@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060408203233.K67402@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2006-Apr-08 20:41:36 +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: >PJ> Backup your amd64 environment and install i386. You can re-install >PJ> the amd64 once the testing is finished. The best benchmark is always >PJ> your own application. > >Or, even better, use spare disk or at least spare slice. Having fresh good >backup never hurts though ;-) Note that using different slices may change your results. All modern disks are faster near the outside (start of the disk) then the inside (I get more than 50% increase from inside to outside on one system). A second disk is OK as long as it's the same type of disk running at the same transfer rate. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060408212421.GB720>