From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 15 14:46:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824A216A40F for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:46:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345C743D46 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:46:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9221D15908E; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:46:38 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:46:38 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: NOC Meganet Message-ID: <20061015144638.GB98831@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: NOC Meganet , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG> <200610150045.42927.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200610150045.42927.tec@mega.net.br> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:46:39 -0000 On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of > > > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production > > > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... > > > > Ah, hardware bigotry.  Your colors are showing. > > come on, it is what it is and performance in first place comes from > the hardware, it doesn't matter how hard you blow the elephant's ass > without wings the beast do not fly There are many reasons why a 32bit OS will be needed, even on a 64bit hardware platform. Just because it says performance does not mean it must be the latest and greatest. Are you sure you aren't a plant from the Linux community? > > > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI.  Let's just look > > > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > > > > > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > > > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > > > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > > > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > > > becoming a valid option for small servers. > > > > And your testing methodogy was...what? > > counting Universal Time Units from beginning of the process until > the end of the process One metric. Good job. Hope it didn't cause too much sweat. To the rest of the list - sorry for the sarcasm and jabs, I hate when people post ignorance laden messages because they must parrot others. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG