From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 22:11:04 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 92AD516A400 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from almarrie@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D2213C455 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from almarrie@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c14so437141anc for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IAV6denlcrcGCcst8ReA1hoSTvF0Wn2sFqsS/qx66xDkuWYGdUeQXRxp1L5YSWHJOZEuBHKlSc3CMinxfALR68Z54lELvNsLbVvgodJI/y/iSXHbEoiIeXCt3XJDgbLExN9Ci6dOxx5EYTHe+oBqmPmE3/7C8SQPDJZI19Gqtuw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pZDHemRvgEXfsZ9cCa4/kWdSJoYQy7kwXedPW8ppYztTAJUBbYY7iWn6Z/iyFeyUQmHPTGLgLFvyWM6sAZt4hxuBxV+xTz4EAFMKIpucKiZuqknxIM0q9Ni2MkSbeIHg18/7jOoNotLJwsYK+Jl1ImL0q7suNYEKtxk+DW8kItA= Received: by 10.100.152.9 with SMTP id z9mr2854452and.1180995063511; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.9.14 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <499c70c0706041511t7f60c335gb3fb6f52e25953e9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:11:03 +0300 From: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" To: tundra@tundraware.com In-Reply-To: <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com> Cc: Chris , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:04 -0000 On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > Chris wrote: > > On 04/06/07, 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/