Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:48:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Michael Powell <nightrecon@verizon.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Opinion request about a file server Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906052244580.85149@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <h0bvd1$98d$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <139b44430906050557v4ce23a13r259535c3e839deb0@mail.gmail.com> <h0bs9c$vp8$1@ger.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906052144510.84936@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <h0bvd1$98d$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Sorry - it wasn't really intended that way. Please note that "slightly > downlevel..." was meant to refer to a combination of older Netburst > architecture and consumer retail motherboard. > The Core Xeons that replaced the old Netburst processors are much better > performers. In a true datacenter server environment wrt file serving it is indeed. pentium IV in average usage (contrary to special cases like video encoding) are even 40% slower per clock cycle than pentium III. new core2duo are mostly improved pentium III with higher clock and more cache :) > better to spend money on I/O rather than CPU. A server motherboard (as > opposed to consumer retail) will have better I/O subsystems, enabling better > throughput. indeed. in most unix usage patterns it's more important than CPU speed. >> with proper configuration it rarely swaps, and can easily saturate >> 100Mbit/s LAN, just not with single transfer, but it's not hardware >> problem, but windows problem :) > > At some point (when I went to a DSL broadband connection) I replaced the > above box with a K-6 II 500MHz with 384MB RAM. Same collection of multiple somehow comparable to my config with sligtly slower CPU, would perform similar in my case. > services. This box was previously utilized for beta testing Windows NT 3.5, > 3.51, and NT 4. So I was able to make a direct comparison between running > Windows NT and FreeBSD on the exact same piece of hardware. FreeBSD simply there is no sense of any comparision ;) > just made better use of the hardware and outperformed NT. In order to match > what FreeBSD was capable of NT would require a more powerful hardware > platform. No. it can't do most things that unix is capable of, unless you install cygwin ;) > will work just fine for what he and his 4 users have in mind for their > needs. I believe the performance characteristics of FreeBSD will maximize > his return on CPU cycles. my home laptop (PIII-M/1133) is rarely limited by CPU power.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0906052244580.85149>