From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 11 10:05:04 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id KAA06265 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:05:04 -0800 Received: from nanolon.gun.de (nanolon.gun.de [192.109.159.5]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA06259 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:05:02 -0800 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nanolon.gun.de (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with UUCP id TAA01845 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 19:04:58 +0100 Received: (from andreas@localhost) by knobel.gun.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id SAA01305 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:52:56 +0100 From: Andreas Klemm Message-Id: <199501111752.SAA01305@knobel.gun.de> Subject: Re: Filesystem(?) preformance - 1.x and 2.0 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:52:55 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <199501101501.QAA07760@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jan 10, 95 04:01:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 914 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > As SysAdmin - Ng Pheng Siong wrote: > | > | Can someone running 1.x and 2.0 on almost similar h/w take a moment > | and try these, please? > > My (and e.g. also Andreas Klemm's) opinion is just the opposite. > Especially the X server performance improved from 1.1.5 to 2.0. I've > run xbench against both systems, but the server even ``feels'' much > faster than the numbers are actually showing (though there's also a > performance gain). Yes, Joerg ... if he had read the numbers I mailed into the current mailinglist some weeks ago, then he'd have the (other) facts ... My comment: "Check cables and connectors" ;-) -- andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - akl@wup.de - *** apsfilter - irgendwie clever *** ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de:/pub/Linux/local/packs/APSfilter/aps-481.tgz