Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:58:02 -0500 From: Jon Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: /dev/null <null@dnswatch.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast Message-ID: <426C328A.9060606@alumni.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> References: <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com> <20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/24/05 18:29, /dev/null wrote: > <snip> > > needed. All in all life on 5.x and the "upgrade" wasn't too bad. I will > say that there is ONE issue that I have found and have not yet solved. It > now takes at least 2 times longer to build any of the ports. Performance > in other areas seems to be lagging as well. I have since upgraded one of > the 2 servers to 5.4-RC2 and have been chasing 5.x ever since hoping to > find the performance issues will dissappear. If you are running a UP system, it is expected that 4.x will outperform 5.x in many situations due to the focus on SMP. Optimizing synchronization to increase performance is one of the main goals for 6.x (see the recent work on critical sections, for example). This will allow us to scale well on SMP systems without pessimizing performance on UP systems. Another point to remember is that compilation times with GCC 3.4 (default for recent 5.x) are much longer than those with 2.95 (default for 4.x), especially at higher optimization levels. This is one of the main reasons why it takes longer to compile a port. That said, in what specific areas are you seeing performance regressions? Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?426C328A.9060606>