Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

[Mike Horwath]

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 at Geeks.ORG