Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:02:20 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster Message-ID: <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris wrote: > On 04/06/07, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> > Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> > 50-60 min >> > New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP >> > 40-50 min >> > Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> > 8 min >> > >> > Is the difference in speed >> > attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? >> >> Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being >> faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and >> between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 >> to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes >> 2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a >> result of "working harder" to find optimizations). >> >> FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except >> compiling itself. :-) >> >> Colin Percival >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > What about all the following observations? > > slower network performance in 6.x especially worse under DDOS conditions. > slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. > > both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people > so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true > would be wrong. My observation of 6.x is that whilst it can exceed > 4.11 performance this is only because of more more powerful hardware > and in particular on SMP systems where 4.11 isnt optimised but for UP > and most older hardware the worst performance of post 4.11 is > highlighted greatly. > > In thoery shouldnt eg. a 6.2 system using a 3ghz core 2 duo be > multiple times faster then a pentium 3 500 running freebsd 4.11 due to > the more powerful hardware? > > Chris It will be of academic interest to me to see how people respond to this. Unfortunately - as documented in my original post - the 4.11 CD will not even boot on this new motherboard for some reason. Given that, and that 4.x is no longer actively developed, I am forced to move to 6.x for my next server ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46646FCC.9060908>