Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote:
On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote:
I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of
migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production
server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ...

Ah, hardware bigotry.  Your colors are showing.

come on, it is what it is and performance in first place comes from
the hardware, it doesn't matter how hard you blow the elephant's ass
without wings the beast do not fly

There are many reasons why a 32bit OS will be needed, even on a 64bit
hardware platform.

Just because it says performance does not mean it must be the latest
and greatest. Are you sure you aren't a plant from the Linux
community?

SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI.  Let's just look
at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI.

I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do
it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K
320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ
is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is
becoming a valid option for small servers.

And your testing methodogy was...what?

counting Universal Time Units from beginning of the process until
the end of the process

One metric.

Good job. Hope it didn't cause too much sweat.

To the rest of the list - sorry for the sarcasm and jabs, I hate when
people post ignorance laden messages because they must parrot others.

--
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Migrating SBS 2003 To new hardware - Need Help!
    ... Jim - I have also used the swing migration kit, ... used it to migrate a SBS box to new hardware with 60 user accounts, ... any other site to new hardware. ... Make sure your roles transfer BACK to the old server before ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Migrating SBS 2003 To new hardware - Need Help!
    ... This is a one time migration and I don't anticipate migrating this site or any other site to new hardware. ... Is it worth purchasing the software and learning the software to migrate one site? ... Make sure your roles transfer BACK to the old server before ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Migrate to new Hardware and/or SBS2003
    ... to SBS2003 first on your current server, ... My first swing migration was an SBS server with 20 users, ... Do you axpect any problems on the new Hardware ... > and should we Upgrade to SBS2003 to avoid strange problems. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
    ... migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production ... server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... ... 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: Migrate to new Hardware and/or SBS2003
    ... > There's more than one way to do a migration, and a lot of things add into ... > to SBS2003 first on your current server, ... >> Migrating to new Hardware. ... >> and should we Upgrade to SBS2003 to avoid strange problems. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)