Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:21:13 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of 4.x vs 5.x (Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches) Message-ID: <42924949.1070902@incubus.de> In-Reply-To: <20050523211307.GA36552@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <20050523195123.GA13810@xor.obsecurity.org> <3482.172.16.0.199.1116882013.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <20050523211307.GA36552@xor.obsecurity.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Kris Kennaway wrote: > One thing that probably confuses and misleads a lot of people is when > they build world or a kernel and notice that it's taking much longer > than it did under 4.x, so they assume this means that 5.x is slower > than 4.x. It doesn't. What it means is that 5.x and 4.x have > different C compilers, and gcc 3.x is much slower at compiling code > than gcc 2.x. You have to be very careful to draw conclusions based > on subjective assessments like this. Another thing might be that interactive response time seems to be worse. While I (or rather ports) unpack the firefox/thunderbird source, the machine is pretty much bogged down (mouse cursor jumps around, audio stutters...). Haven't seen that on FreeBSD since the 386 days. mkb.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42924949.1070902>