Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:34 +0100 From: Mark Blackman <mark@blackmans.org> To: Santos <casd@myrealbox.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Message-ID: <20020828224534.A68623@maddog.netscalibur.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com>; from casd@myrealbox.com on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:44:56PM %2B0100 References: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
a) he didn't do enough tuning even in the second instance b) he didn't give enough information about his application to allow further tuning. c) the biggest problem was that his application was binary only and you had to pay for it. FreeBSD is fine, faster on some things, slower in others. On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:44:56PM +0100, Santos wrote: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? > So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the > contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? > > > Santos > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020828224534.A68623>