From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 23 21:12:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5DD16A41C for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 21:12:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DFE43D1D for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 21:12:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F8CB5138D; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:13:07 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mike Jakubik Message-ID: <20050523211307.GA36552@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <20050523195123.GA13810@xor.obsecurity.org> <3482.172.16.0.199.1116882013.squirrel@172.16.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3482.172.16.0.199.1116882013.squirrel@172.16.0.1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Performance of 4.x vs 5.x (Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:12:21 -0000 --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 05:00:13PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 3:51 pm, Kris Kennaway said: >=20 > > The common wisdom has been that FreeBSD 4.11 is faster than 5.4 on > > single processor systems. Imagine my surprise when I went and actually > > benchmarked this on the package build machines, and found that 5.4 > > outperforms 4.11 by at least 10% when performing identical workloads on > > identical UP hardware :-) > > > > Stay tuned for more details... >=20 > To be honest, i have not (yet) done any specific benchmarks for my > application, but overall, last time i used 4.x, it seemed more snappy. > But, this is good to hear :) One thing that probably confuses and misleads a lot of people is when they build world or a kernel and notice that it's taking much longer than it did under 4.x, so they assume this means that 5.x is slower than 4.x. It doesn't. What it means is that 5.x and 4.x have different C compilers, and gcc 3.x is much slower at compiling code than gcc 2.x. You have to be very careful to draw conclusions based on subjective assessments like this. Kris --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCkkdjWry0BWjoQKURAsXwAJ4uWLNb9lncwzQ/O8gQ7Fu+3L4fIQCfX0sC YJouSOXwY7KqEmkxaStA1ag= =nt9e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--