Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:52:48 -0800 (PST) From: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> To: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> Cc: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@freebsd.org>, Wei Weng <wweng@stevens-tech.edu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance differences Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123175137.7393A-100000@luke.cpl.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971123160831.17923A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > installed. The amount used is reported in the startup messages, > > which the reviewers must have missed. > > > > they did not do the minimum of building a kernel to use > > the larger amount of memory available > > The whole point of this was to test a machine "out of the box". I.E. doing > as little customization as possible. If they had tested with 3.0 (a.k.a. > -current) which sizes >64M OTH, methinks that FreeBSD would have come out > on top. If I remember correctly, this upset someone on the FreeBSD core team(David Greenman?), and this bug was fixed. :) Better late than never...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971123175137.7393A-100000>