Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:11:03 +0300 From: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> To: tundra@tundraware.com Cc: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster Message-ID: <499c70c0706041511t7f60c335gb3fb6f52e25953e9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote: > Chris wrote: > > On 04/06/07, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > >> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > > > > What about all the following observations? > > > > slower network performance in 6.x especially worse under DDOS conditions. > > slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. > > > > both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people > > so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true > > would be wrong. My observation of 6.x is that whilst it can exceed > > 4.11 performance this is only because of more more powerful hardware > > and in particular on SMP systems where 4.11 isnt optimised but for UP > > and most older hardware the worst performance of post 4.11 is > > highlighted greatly. > > > > In thoery shouldnt eg. a 6.2 system using a 3ghz core 2 duo be > > multiple times faster then a pentium 3 500 running freebsd 4.11 due to > > the more powerful hardware? > > > > Chris > > It will be of academic interest to me to see how people respond to this. > Unfortunately - as documented in my original post - the 4.11 CD will > not even boot on this new motherboard for some reason. Given that, and > that 4.x is no longer actively developed, I am forced to move to 6.x for > my next server ... > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com You will not regret it, and wait FreeBSD 7.0 real powerful SMPing which done on it. I run heavily MySQL 5.0.41 app on itm and it's way faster than running it in 6.2-STABLE with C2D 6600 and 2 GB of ram. -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?499c70c0706041511t7f60c335gb3fb6f52e25953e9>