Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:25:02 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Roger Skjetlein <rskjetlein@atmel.com> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Subject: Re: Poor network performance in 5.4 AMD64 Snap 8 with SMP support Message-ID: <20051017052501.GA29248@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <4352FB7D.6030008@atmel.com> References: <20051008011047.T58661@netrunner.nu> <20051016215759.S66014@fledge.watson.org> <4352CC74.5060801@atmel.com> <200510162045.33266.joao@matik.com.br> <4352FB7D.6030008@atmel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 03:16:45AM +0200, Roger Skjetlein wrote: > I'm a bit conserned since the 5.x didn't exactly prove good stabillity=20 > and performance records, thats why I ask wether 6.0 is better than 5.x. 6.0 and 5.0 really aren't comparable in any way. You should think of it as "5.4 + new stuff", instead of "4.x completely redesigned" (which 5.0 was). If you're concerned about stability though, the best you can do is try it out on a non-critical system and see how it works for you. Kris --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDUzWtWry0BWjoQKURAlSSAJ4i3SIImagqQ4SlyHZSwsRFZLttqACfcqVH ++kPbsEgCJ6WiT5PYZaQSA8= =sgeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051017052501.GA29248>