From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Apr 24 11:23:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21438 for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:23:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21154; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id MAA22910; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:22:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA28160; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:23:13 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:23:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Slemko To: Mike Smith cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *** Real Action Item: SPECweb In-Reply-To: <199804241807.LAA00744@dingo.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > > I have spoken to several of my lower level sal> Once we have the system spec'd, I have no doubt I can get hardware, because it's > > very obvious that this will be an enormous bonanza for all major corporate > > sponsors. > > - Dual 400MHz PII's (I think this will finally pull ahead of the 1M > cache 233MHz P6'en). I really doubt that dual processors will give you any advantage even if you were willing to use current. I'm not up on the current state of FreeBSD SMP, but if it isn't beyond the level of a single spin lock on kernel code, you won't win and you could even lose by going SMP. You can actually get worse performance when using SMP on stable Linux kernels than not using it. > - A BX-based board with as much memory as the PII's will cache. > - All of the OS, and if possible all of the web data in MFS. This may > involve the biggest, nastiest PicoBSD config you can imagine. The size of the SPECweb dataset actually changes with the "expected" benchmark results. You are probably looking at... 500-750 megs or so. I don't think you can use MFS, there are certain restrictions on what you can and can't do when reporting SPECweb numbers. > - If it won't all work in an MFS, a DPT controller and a small farm of > 10000rpm fibrechannel disks. Otherwise, the disk is irrelevant. > - No swap. No, you want swap especially if using Apache (because of all the COW pages). It won't be "really" used, but you still need it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message