Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:22:59 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.11 snapshots? Message-ID: <20060517130629.T64952@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <446A0608.10608@freebsd.org> References: <200605160135.TAA04838@lariat.net> <57d710000605151942p2461338au561269fc5937aee7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060515225038.08d72690@lariat.org> <446981CD.5000309@gmail.com> <4469C668.2060807@rerowe.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060516104907.08788ad8@lariat.org> <446A0608.10608@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Tue, 16 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote: > Personally, since FreeBSD 4.11 will reach its EoL about 8 months > from now, and the 4.x->[56].x upgrade path is non-trivial, I > recommend installing FreeBSD 6.1 instead. Well, have you seen my simple performance benchmarking RELENG_4 vs 6? IMHO it mimics quote common usage pattern: it just downloads a large file with 10Mbps rate and stores it on UFS filesystem. On the same hardware (i386 uniprocessor Celeron-333 system with 128Mb RAM and fast SAMSUNG SP0802N HDD using UDMA33) under the same conditions, using more optimal config (INVARIANTS removed) RELENG_6 (and 5) _still_ uses >= 50% of CPU time for (Intr+Sys), while RELENG_4 doesn't use more than 28% for them. So (unless this performance difference will be minimized) I predict _a lot_ of requests to extend RELENG_4 support further, because people just couldn't afford 4->6 upgrade due to a loss of performance. > Colin Percival Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060517130629.T64952>