From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 10:05:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF5016A4C0 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web14908.mail.yahoo.com (web14908.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.225.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCAE543F85 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:05:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nirv199@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030827170551.36265.qmail@web14908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.96.0.204] by web14908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:05:51 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:05:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Paulo Roberto To: Bill Moran , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3F4C143D.7000909@potentialtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Performance tests I did with FreeBSD, Linux and PostgreSQL X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:05:52 -0000 --- Bill Moran wrote: > Like all benchmarks, I doubt these are perfect (or even close) > examples > of real-world use. Bill, Quoting your conclusion: "I was extremely disappointed in FreeBSD's poor showing." I think you should compare tomatoes to tomatoes. You are comparing Linux 2.4.20-8 which is a pretty stable release to FreeBSD 5.1, which by no means has the same maturity (I am pretty sure a flame war might be started by this point of view, but that's just my opinion). I think a good approach would be comparing Linux 2.4.20-8 to FreeBSD 4.8 or as a second option: FReeBSD 5.1 "against" Linux 2.6.0. Just my 2 cents... best regards, Paulo Roberto __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com