Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- From: Eric Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:33:40 -0500
On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Quoting Dan Lukes <dan@xxxxxxxxx> (from Thu, 12
Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to performance@]
The main problem is - 6.x is still notcompetitive replacement for4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupportedhardware - I speaked aboutperformance in some situation and believe init's stability.
You can't be sure that a committer has the
resources to setup an environment where he is able to reproduce your
performance problems. You on the other hand have hands-on experience
with the performance problem. If you are able to setup a -current
system (because there are changes which may affect performance already,
and it is the place where the nuw stuff will be developt) which
exposes the bad behavior, you could make yourself familiar with the pmc
framework (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure
jkoshy@ will help if you have questions) and point out the bottlenecks
on current@ and/or performance@ (something similar happened for
MySQL, and now we have a webpage in the wiki about it). Without such
reports, we can't handle the issue.
Further discussion about this should happen in
performance@ or current@...
Bye,
Alexander.
Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
to come out of its world of delusion and come to
terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
knows: In how ever many years of development,
there is still no good reason to use anything
other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't
support a lot of newer harder. There is no
performance advantage in real world applications
with multiple processors, and the performance is
far worse with 1 processor.
The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it,
PLEASE, because it is the case and saying
otherwise won't change it.
My prediction is that a year from now we'll all
be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be
looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs.
My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc..
Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's what people do, and that's the beauty of open source.
Eric
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- From: Derrick T. Woolworth
- RE: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- From: Tamouh H.
- Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
- Next by Date: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
- Previous by thread: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
- Next by thread: RE: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
