Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:27 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Dave Leimbach <dleimbac@MPI-Softtech.Com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmarks and reactions Message-ID: <15144.52023.124483.1823@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <16098900@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Leimbach <dleimbac@MPI-Softtech.Com> types: > If we react calmly and try to reproduce the statistics or some related > benchmarking we may actually find there are bugs in our code or even a > place where optimization may be necessary. Given reasonable statistics to start with, that does happen with FreeBSD. Given apples-to-oranges comparisons, it's not likely. > I am just curious as to why the standard generic FreeBSD distribution does > not come with higher performance defaults. Certainly soft-updates are a > plus in general. Why not use them by default? Because they are new enough that having them on is considered less reliable than having them off. FreeBSD's default configuration is generally tuned for *reliability*, not speed. It may be that soft updates aren't less reliable - that's certainly been my experience - but changes that may make the default system less reliable are frowned on. I wouldn't expect it to happen before snapshots are in -RELEASE, but I've been wrong about such before. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15144.52023.124483.1823>