From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 8 21:34:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 B2F0616A400 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 21:34:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6AB43D46 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 21:34:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (localhost.natserv.net [127.0.0.1]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6378B843; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 17:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (zoraida.natserv.net [66.114.65.147]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA54B81D; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 17:34:51 -0400 (EDT) References: <442B2FC6.9040001@123.com.sv> <20060330011834.GA84658@xor.obsecurity.org> <442BF0BB.8010504@123.com.sv> <20060330150136.GA12982@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Kris Kennaway Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:34:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: Miguel , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, usleepless@gmail.com Subject: Re: terrible performance in 6.1beta4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:34:52 -0000 Kris Kennaway writes: > Well there you go then..you're trying to access a file that is larger > than RAM, so naturally you won't be able to fit it all in RAM, and > with 1GB less RAM in your system you'll spend much more time reading > bits of it from disk and later throwing them away. Not to mention the old system has SCSI and the new one has SATA. The poster didn't mention, but if the SCSI are 10K rpm or 15K rpm and the SATA are 7,200 rpm.. the SATA disks don't stand a chance.. specially with less memory.