From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 17 16:50:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C14916A4CE for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:50:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m25.mx.aol.com (imo-m25.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C7C43D4C for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:50:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Freebsd0101@aol.com) Received: from Freebsd0101@aol.com by imo-m25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id r.12c.55534079 (3972); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: Freebsd0101@aol.com Message-ID: <12c.55534079.2f1d46cf@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:50:23 EST To: stheg_olloydson@yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: J.Keil@gmx.de cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:50:40 -0000 In a message dated 1/16/05 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, stheg_olloydson@yahoo.com writes: >>Now i am really puzzled because i cannot understand why 4.x behaves >>relatively good compared to 5.x on this specific issue. Is there a >>good explanation or does one have to investigate this further? >Also, as you saw yourself, using an SMP kernel in FBSD 5.3 doesn't >cause a performance hit in networking but it does in NBSD 2.0. >So your choices seem to be use 4.11RC2 (full release due shortly) to >get the best network response, 5.3 to get as good performance as NBSD >2.0 but with SMP, or use NBSD 2.0 to get as good perfomance as 5.3 but >without SMP. Of course, you can wait until NBSD (your prefered OS) >performs as well as FBSD, but that may be a loooonng time.:) Of course you won't be able to run 4.x on the latest hardware, because they've stopped supporting such things. What "puzzles" me is that they call 5.x the "production version", even though they seem to know its not there yet. So (sadly), you can't run the fastest version on the fastest hardware.