Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3,
5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
dudu at dudu.ro
Thu Oct 12 16:36:29 UTC 2006
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes <dan at obluda.cz> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > 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.
> Despite I'm initiator of this way of discussion (in security list), I
> can't agree with you. No way.
> You are not allowed to tell to someone working as volunteer several
> months on something that the best way is rollback all work and start
> from scratch. Despite of your complaints are competent or not. You
> totally miss the right time for this type of complain. It's too late now.
> 6.x is not crap in any way. It has some problem, even after many months
> of development, but it can be resolved if volunteers decide to use it's
> power to polish previously implemented code. Current 6.x is better in
> many parameters than 4.x. Well, some important parameters are worse, but
> correct decision is improve them, not rollback all work.
> I voted against premature EOLing of 4.x, but returning to FreeBSD 4.x
> is not acceptable way in any way - at least because it's the DragonBSD's
> nest now.
Don't go with the flow, he's a known troll.
If it's there, and you can see it, it's real.
If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual.
If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent.
If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it.
More information about the freebsd-performance