Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:39:54 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: shawn@luke.cpl.net (Shawn Ramsey) Cc: garbanzo@hooked.net, jmb@freebsd.org, wweng@stevens-tech.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance differences Message-ID: <199711240239.SAA25031@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123175137.7393A-100000@luke.cpl.net> from "Shawn Ramsey" at Nov 23, 97 05:52:48 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Shawn Ramsey wrote: > > > > 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... correct....david redid the memory detection code. jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711240239.SAA25031>