Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com> To: performance@freebsd.org Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) Message-ID: <20061012105249.P77744@demos.bsdclusters.com> In-Reply-To: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Please do not feed the trolls. -Kip On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote: > > > --- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> > wrote: > > > Quoting Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> (from Thu, 12 > > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > > > [moved from security@ to performance@] > > > > > The main problem is - 6.x is still not > > competitive replacement for > > > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > > hardware - I speaked about > > > performance in some situation and believe in > > it's stability. > > > > You can't be sure that a committer has the > > resources to setup an > > environment where he is able to reproduce your > > performance problems. > > You on the other hand have hands-on experience > > with the performance > > problem. If you are able to setup a -current > > system (because there are > > changes which may affect performance already, > > and it is the place > > where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > > exposes the bad behavior, > > you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > > framework > > (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > > jkoshy@ will help if you > > have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > > on current@ and/or > > performance@ (something similar happened for > > MySQL, and now we have a > > webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > > reports, we can't handle > > the issue. > > > > Further discussion about this should happen in > > performance@ or current@... > > > > Bye, > > Alexander. > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > knows: In how ever many years of development, > there is still no good reason to use anything > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > performance advantage in real world applications > with multiple processors, and the performance is > far worse with 1 processor. > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > otherwise won't change it. > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. > > DT > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061012105249.P77744>