From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 25 10:57:43 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B69016A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:57:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fast.dnswatch.com (fast.dnswatch.com [216.177.243.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEE243D60 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:57:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from null@dnswatch.com) Received: from fast.dnswatch.com (localhost.dnswatch.com [127.0.0.1]) by fast.dnswatch.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j3PAvfsm044232 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:57:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from null@dnswatch.com) Received: (from www@localhost) by fast.dnswatch.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id j3PAvf5X044231; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:57:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from null@dnswatch.com) X-Authentication-Warning: fast.dnswatch.com: www set sender to null@dnswatch.com using -f Received: from ns0.1command.com ([216.177.243.38]) (DNSwatch.com_WebMail authenticated user null) by webmail.dnswatch.com with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1263.216.177.243.38.1114426661.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com><20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com><3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com><426C328A.9060606@alumni.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:57:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "/dev/null" To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org User-Agent: DNSwatch.com_WebMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:57:43 -0000 Same System, same Applications. With the exception of Xorg in place of XFree86. -Chris > performance on many systems is very hard to gauge. I think this is > something mostly left up to the individual, as hardware-software > combinations truly make up the performance of a system. > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Jon Noack wrote: > >> On 04/24/05 18:29, /dev/null wrote: >>> >>> >>> needed. All in all life on 5.x and the "upgrade" wasn't too bad. I will >>> say that there is ONE issue that I have found and have not yet solved. >>> It >>> now takes at least 2 times longer to build any of the ports. >>> Performance >>> in other areas seems to be lagging as well. I have since upgraded one >>> of >>> the 2 servers to 5.4-RC2 and have been chasing 5.x ever since hoping to >>> find the performance issues will dissappear. >> >> If you are running a UP system, it is expected that 4.x will outperform >> 5.x >> in many situations due to the focus on SMP. Optimizing synchronization >> to >> increase performance is one of the main goals for 6.x (see the recent >> work on >> critical sections, for example). This will allow us to scale well on >> SMP >> systems without pessimizing performance on UP systems. >> >> Another point to remember is that compilation times with GCC 3.4 >> (default for >> recent 5.x) are much longer than those with 2.95 (default for 4.x), >> especially at higher optimization levels. This is one of the main >> reasons >> why it takes longer to compile a port. >> >> That said, in what specific areas are you seeing performance >> regressions? >> >> Jon >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > //////////////////////////////////////////////////// If only Western Electric had found a way to offer binary licenses for the UNIX system back in 1974, the UNIX system would be running on all PC's today rather than DOS/Windows. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////