From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 24 12:35:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3794115519 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:35:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA00989; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:31:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199906241931.MAA00989@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Wes Peters Cc: Julian Elischer , "Russell L. Carter" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:39:32 MDT." <37724324.E984AFD@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:31:00 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > I think it's been pretty well known since the beginning that FreeBSD > > SMP performance is nothing to cheer about. How does FreeBSD fare > > against NT or other systems on single processor systems? > > Sorry to follow up on my own message, but I noted today in PCWeek > their trip back to the benchmark lab includes ripping 3 CPUs and > 768M RAM out of the system, to benchmark how Linux and NT perform > on "lower-end" hardware. They also allowed the RedHat dudes to > switch to an Adaptec SCSI controller to talk to the RAID array. > How are we holding up under this "diminished" configuration? We don't have any numbers for that yet, and we cheat a little (using a U2W controller and U2W external RAID unit). -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message