From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 00:44:05 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0180816A4CE for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:44:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A98A43D39 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:44:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09676129 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:44:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72941-07 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:43:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3D760EA for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:43:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <41E5C461.2050800@makeworld.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:44:17 -0600 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050101) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <148.3bec082b.2f17199c@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <148.3bec082b.2f17199c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.2.0 (20041102) at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.3 Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:44:05 -0000 Tm4528@aol.com wrote: > Mr Watson, > > As you are listed as the leader of the FreeBSD foundation, and you seem to be > the > only one willing to admit that FreeBSD 5.3 is not yet up to the performance > of 4.x, > doesn't in concern you that: > > 1) Freebsd 4.x is not being supported as a production O/S, and the "support" > is > ending with 4.11 before 5.x is ready performance-wise? > 2) FreeBSD 4.x doesn't seem to work well with the 7520/5 chipsets, which are > required to run the latest Intel XEON CPUs (Dell's most powerful servers, for > example, > are based on the 7520). A long-standing PR has been largely ignored > 3) None of your "developers", according to Ted M, have ever "heard of" Intel's > latest and most powerful chipsets. > 4) no one in your "organization" seems to care about 1, 2 or 3 > > FreeBSD has fallen into a performance "hole" of sorts, in that the fastest > version > doesnt run on the fastest Motherboards. Its easily correctable, by simply > dedicating > resources for a day or 2 to find out whats wrong with the 7520 support. I'd > like to hear > why you don't think its worthwhile, as a primary goal, to make certain that > the > fastest version of the product works well on the fastest available > motherboards. Hahahaha - are we smelling a troll?! -- Best regards, Chris I finally got it all together ... but I forgot where I put it.