Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3,
5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon)
danial_thom at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 12 20:54:43 UTC 2006
--- Dan Lukes <dan at obluda.cz> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > The right thing to do is to port the SATA
> > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
> > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
> > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away
> > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with
> > 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.
I didn't say to roll back all of the work. I said
to support 4.x as a UP solution, and 6,7 or
whatever as what it is now. 5+ will never be as
good as 4.x UP, and many networking applications
such as firewalls and routers simply will never
be able to scale to utilize MP anyway. You had
the best damn UP OS in the world, why not
continue to support it as so while you try to
figure out MP?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the freebsd-performance