Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:40:46 +0200 From: Michael Schuh <michael.schuh@gmail.com> To: rwatson@FreeBSD.org, aiy@ferens.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD Message-ID: <1dbad31505072105401c06bee6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, at this point i musttail my paint with you and the other's. I have really made a few tests on one big issue or RELENG_5. At the time as it was early enough to change things, but the guys they have me telled someone else have to fast machines to test ( in my eyes they should test on some sloweer hardware, to become the maximum performance) I have telled some guys the problems that i have found, these Problems are= =20 really important for other issues ( performance from applications etc.) but no one would really hear what i have to say, they telled me some unrelevant ( and many bullshit), and they think not before they speak..... so that the result for me ist to wait on RELENG_6, so that i made one or two tests and if the tests do not perform in the right direction then i leave the FreeBSD and going back to Linux or switching eventually to DragonFly. Now my question to you : is the performance of ata-related disk-access under UFS-Filesystem not important for other application, so that the performance can be a half of them that RELENG_4 does? In fact under RELENG_4 i can write a GIG FIle double as fast as under RELENG_5 ! and i would not hear any thing about serial performance or that this is not really like the real world, if i syimulate that with: /usr/bin/time dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/zerofile bs=3D1024 count=3D1024k; this is reality poor! I know we gave all our best, but many people are more arrogant, and think not really... best regards Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1dbad31505072105401c06bee6>