From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 22:13:58 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 988E316A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:13:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m21.mx.aol.com (imo-m21.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35F543D2D for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:13:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Freebsd0101@aol.com) Received: from Freebsd0101@aol.com by imo-m21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id e.fb.688f67fc (17377); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:13:31 -0500 (EST) From: Freebsd0101@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:13:31 EST To: nalists@scls.lib.wi.us MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thank you! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:13:58 -0000 In a message dated 1/14/05 1:54:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, nalists@scls.lib.wi.us writes: > >> So your claim that its a "heavy-duty server" platform is tainted by the >> fact that in order to use the fastest server Mobos, you have to use the >> slower, >> still-under-development 5.x. Which seems counterproductive for an O/S >> that is trying to establish itself as a choice as a server platform. >> >>As was pretty clearly explained in previous threads, FreeBSD 5.x is >>slower than 4.x *at certain tasks under certain conditions* because >>it is rather considerably more featureful and complex than 4.x ---- Unfortunately, one of those "tasks" is networking, which is required by every server that I know of. As Mr. Watson pointed out, 5.x has significant "per-packet" inefficiencies. Servers are judged by their capacity, which is a per-packet issue. Which means that, as a "server", 5.x is 25-30% less efficient than 4.x. Inefficient, for you high-schoolers, means "slower" in this context. It helps if you understand the big picture.