From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Nov 23 12:32:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29695
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:32:38 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29689;
          Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:32:35 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jmb)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199711232032.MAA29689@hub.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: performance differences
To: wweng@stevens-tech.edu (Wei Weng)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.96.971123023816.15543A-100000@attila.stevens-tech.edu> from "Wei Weng" at Nov 23, 97 02:39:05 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Wei Weng wrote:
> 
> check out :
> http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19970901S0125
> for the result of performance tests on linux freebsd and windowsNT. 

	FreeBSD was using 1/2 the memory used by the other systems.
	FreeBSD was conservative in determinghte amount of memory 
	installed.  The amount used is reported in the startup messages,
	which the reviewers must have missed.

	they did not do the minimum of building a kernel to use
	the larger amount of memory available

jmb