Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:27:11 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Reginald Perry <perry@zso.dec.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Message-ID: <19981005222711.23452@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F2FF@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>; from Reginald Perry on Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 12:12:50PM -0700 References: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F2FF@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Reginald Perry wrote: > Hi there, > There is an article in the Net Tools, From The Bench section of PC Magazine > talking about FreeBSD 2.2.7. Looks pretty factual, but there was one > confusing statement. They initially configured both machines with 128MB of > RAM. They then increased the RAM and noted that as you do this NT surpasses > FreeBSD in their performance measure. They state that this is because of a > cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD. Is this true? Could someone describe > this in more detail if so? FreeBSD is tuned to have max performance when it get under load - ie, when it actually is doing something. There should not be any limitations to the use of cache - FreeBSD basically regard _everything_ as cache. Your entire RAM is just a cache for the disk. I'd guess the benchmark interpretation comes from the reviewer doing a wild guess on why FreeBSD was slower. BTW: How much was the difference? And how much did they increase the RAM size? Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981005222711.23452>