From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 15 10:46:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC9E37B40A for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f5FHk0f50280; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:46:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:46:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Dragos Ruiu Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Rajappa Iyer , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sysadmin article In-Reply-To: <01061509341402.30671@zyx> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dragos Ruiu wrote: > I would heartily endorse having the out of the box FreeBSD install be > tuned better... > > Sysadmin can't be knocked for not doing the tuning as running an out of > the box config is what a vast majority of users do, imho, so their > performance tests and the poor results from FreeBSD are perfectly valid > indication of what can be expected without tuning. > > Softupdates on by default sounds great to me, as I can't think of any > common situations that would be hurt by it. But I'm sure someone will > correct me if I'm wrong on this. Now if we could only speed up SMP > too... Well, I think this is especially true in light of the recent decision to turn WCE back on by default for IDE. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message