From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 18:53:32 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0710516A46D; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:53:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Received: from eskimo.tundraware.com (eskimo.tundraware.com [66.92.130.161]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59DF13C484; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:53:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (viper.tundraware.com [192.168.0.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by eskimo.tundraware.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l54IrPWm052398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:53:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Message-ID: <46645FA3.2000003@tundraware.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:53:23 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk Organization: TundraWare Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin Percival References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-tundraware.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 1, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-From: tundra@tundraware.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: tundra@tundraware.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:53:32 -0000 Colin Percival wrote: > Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> 50-60 min >> New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP >> 40-50 min >> Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> 8 min >> >> Is the difference in speed >> attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? > > Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being > faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and > between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 > to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes > 2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a > result of "working harder" to find optimizations). > > FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except > compiling itself. :-) > > Colin Percival > So ... if I ran compute bound tests like SPECmark or some kind of I/O intensive tests, I should expect better runtime performance from 6.2 than 4.11... I can live with that :) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/