Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:37:33 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thank you! Message-ID: <812485966.20050114223733@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <200501141305.40257.zettel@acm.org> References: <e8.aa6fa22.2f1961e8@aol.com> <200501141305.40257.zettel@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Len Zettel writes: LZ> Better to expend resources on making 5.3 faster than 4.10 on all LZ> chipsets or retrofit 4.10 to the new ones? New OS versions should always provide either better functionality with the same performance, or better performance with the same functionality. Ideally they'd provide both better performance and better functionality. However, if a new release runs more slowly than an old release or drops functionality compared to an old release, it becomes difficult to justify "upgrading" to it. I moved to 5.3 originally because I thought I had a software problem on my server. After it turned out to be a hardware problem that required building a completely new server, I installed 5.3 simply because it was the latest available and it finally looked as though it might be stable. However, my system is not hurting for performance because it is lightly loaded in comparison with the amount of hardware horsepower it has available. On a system that is pegged to the wall most of the time, any reduction in performance is a serious problem. But then again, I know from my experience in optimizing systems that, if you are so close to the wall that you can't afford even a tiny drop in performance, you need more hardware, anyway (because an average load of, say, 99% almost invariably means many peak loads that completely overload the existing system, unless your system has an extraordinarily constant load profile). -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?812485966.20050114223733>