Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3,
5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
kmacy at fsmware.com
Thu Oct 12 17:54:44 UTC 2006
Please do not feed the trolls.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
> --- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net>
> > Quoting Dan Lukes <dan at obluda.cz> (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
> > (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 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.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-performance