Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
danial_thom at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 14 06:03:32 PDT 2006
Unfortunately, the "certain tasks" are squid,
apache and networking applications, which are the
only viable reasons to use the OS commercially.
I've yet to hear 1 (thats *one*) commercial
vendor who built a product on 4.x claim to move
to 5 or 6 because of its superior performance.
The only ones I know that have switched did so
because of some device they needed or SATA
support. I continue to be baffled by the
following after 4 years of complete failure to
make MP perform. Its almost like the entire user
base is drugged or something.
Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor
is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales
with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep
4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
--- Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
> > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson
> > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast
> > 4.x uniprocessor
> FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is
> demonstrably false in
> generality, which is what makes 6.x so useful
> to many people.
> If you can one day get this through your head
> and stop posting false
> claims, people may eventually stop calling you
> a troll. I hope so,
> because you might actually have something to
> contribute if only you
> can learn to properly qualify your statements.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the freebsd-performance