Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

Eric Anderson anderson at
Thu Oct 12 08:33:38 PDT 2006

On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote:
> --- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at>
> wrote:
>> Quoting Dan Lukes <dan at> (from Thu, 12
>> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>> [moved from security@ to performance@]
>>> 	The main problem is - 6.x is still not
>> competitive replacement for
>>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported
>> hardware - I speaked about
>>> performance in some situation and believe in
>> it'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  
>> (, 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 at ...
>> 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 Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list