Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
- From: Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Please do not feed the trolls.
-Kip
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, 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 for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupportedhardware - I speaked about
performance 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.
DT
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
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:
- References:
- Prev by Date: RE: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Next by Date: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- 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 (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
