From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Nov 23 17:53:04 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA22781
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:53:04 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions)
Received: from luke.cpl.net (luke.cpl.net [207.67.172.194])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22775;
          Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:53:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from shawn@luke.cpl.net)
Received: from localhost (shawn@localhost) by luke.cpl.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07414; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:52:48 -0800 (PST)
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
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971123160831.17923A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123175137.7393A-100000@luke.cpl.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 	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...