From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 21:37:34 2005 Return-Path: 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 971D016A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:37:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp8.wanadoo.fr (smtp8.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501E543D49 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:37:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0802.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8ACBB1C0029D for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:37:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0802.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 677DA1C0026B for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:37:33 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050114213733424.677DA1C0026B@mwinf0802.wanadoo.fr Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:37:33 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <812485966.20050114223733@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200501141305.40257.zettel@acm.org> References: <200501141305.40257.zettel@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Thank you! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:37:34 -0000 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