Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
tec at mega.net.br
Sat Oct 14 07:13:44 PDT 2006
> 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.
Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but isn 't
this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but also i386 is
practically marked to die out as well as UP systems are. All platforms are
going to be 64bits and memory of 4GB or more is not so rare anymore. Allmost
all AM2 MBs support already 16MB. Even most professionals are not using SCSI
anymore but Sata-II. Only this some points discard 4.11.
When I migrated from 4.11 to 5.x I first was disappointed but after learning
better my 5.5 SMP apache are not that bad today. MySql is also not behind,
only the write performance is not as good as I wanted to but my 6.2 SMP
Squids are real faster under load. But I do not use i386 or UP anymore.
So for me my Athlon32XP 2GB bummer was perhaps faster with 4.11 than with 6.x
on it but I believe that 4.11 do not make it up to 6.2-amd64 on FX62 with 8GB
but I never tried that and guess I would not either.
Prowip Telecom Ltda
A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
More information about the freebsd-performance