Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:56:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Devin Butterfield <dbutter@wireless.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>, Rajappa Iyer <rsi@panix.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sysadmin article Message-ID: <3B29CDB9.FF517D3B@mindspring.com> References: <200106150223.f5F2NLW08368@panix1.panix.com> <20010615001318.F1832@superconductor.rush.net> <01061422021000.39234@dbm.wireless.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Devin Butterfield wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2001 9:13, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Rajappa Iyer <rsi@panix.com> [010614 22:23] wrote: > > > http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm > > > > > > Any obvious reasons why FreeBSD performed so poorly > > > for these people? > > > > Because they did benchmarks on systems without tuning. > > So why doesn't FreeBSD ship with a "tuned" configuration? > Just curious... Tuning trades performance for reliability. By default, FreeBSD is reliable for any general purpose application, and does not overcommit resources which will never end up being used in the majority of applications. They have a special purpose application written to a particular architecture with a particular implementation model. Tuning FreeBSD for this use would de-tune it for other uses. See my other posting. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B29CDB9.FF517D3B>