From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 18 22:20:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7736116A469 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:20:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3216613C4D9 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:20:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0IMKSrS096547; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m0IMKSnP008884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200801182220.m0IMKSnP008884@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:20:32 -0500 To: "Steven Hartland" , From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <200801182148.m0ILmOak008730@lava.sentex.ca> References: <014401c85a16$a5557280$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <200801182148.m0ILmOak008730@lava.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: To 6.3 or to 7.0 that is the question? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:20:29 -0000 At 04:48 PM 1/18/2008, Mike Tancsa wrote: >At 04:11 PM 1/18/2008, Steven Hartland wrote: >>I know 7 has had a lot of work done on locking and ULE but are there >>any other reasons to go for that instead of 6.3? Conversely are there >>any reason which would point away from 7 such as stability issues? > >Our production experiences with 7 have been good so far. I just did >a rather busy customer mail server this morning and so far so good. >I migrated it from 6.3 to 7 and am just finishing the portupgrade >process. We have also been running a 7.x box in our spam/virus >scanning cluster since late Nov 2007 and no issues there either. We >havent done any benchmarks to see if its faster than the 6.x boxes, >but its certainly stable so far and seems to at least keep up to the >other boxes. The 7.x box is a little faster according to my colleague. Below are the average scanning times per message. Assuming that in a 24hr period each box will get approximately the same mix of spam, the times below are how long an average scan took. He also said the 7x box does perform better under high load when a large blast comes in all at once. Lines: 15643 Total: 61114.90 Average: 3.91 Lines: 15446 Total: 61079.90 Average: 3.95 Lines: 15633 Total: 62584.70 Average: 4.00 Lines: 15481 Total: 60892.80 Average: 3.93 Lines: 15515 Total: 60714.40 Average: 3.91 Lines: 15603 Total: 58300.40 Average: 3.74 As well as spam scanning, they do AV stuff as well. ---Mike