Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:22:06 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= <leccine@gmail.com> To: S4mmael <s4mmael@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... Message-ID: <b8592ed80909300522h49870749l8b8c35176225e34e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? you might have overlooked it. yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael <s4mmael@gmail.com> wrote: > > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think > > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read > the > > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is > > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. > What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this > version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 > Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason > to be suprised. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- the sun shines for all
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b8592ed80909300522h49870749l8b8c35176225e34e>