From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 7 1:15:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from kazi.dcse.fee.vutbr.cz (kazi.dcse.fee.vutbr.cz [147.229.8.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BFA37B41D for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cejkar@localhost) by kazi.dcse.fee.vutbr.cz (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g179F2N89594; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:15:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:15:02 +0100 From: Cejka Rudolf To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance of -current vs -stable Message-ID: <20020207101501.A89056@fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from drosih@rpi.edu on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:10:05AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Garance A Drosihn wrote (2002/02/06): > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > something about my machine's setup which is a major culprit here. > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have been > seeing for performance when they run current. There is another common source of confusion: If anybody has IDE disks, write-caching is enabled by default in -stable, but disabled in -current. -- Rudolf Cejka http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~cejkar Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Information Technology Bozetechova 2, 612 66 Brno, Czech Republic To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message