Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

Mike Horwath drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Sat Oct 14 11:05:19 PDT 2006

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Wow, I hope not.
> only a matter of time I guess, next year we will have 64bit
> quad-cores and I am really not sure if anybody will build 32bit
> versions ever again

Again, I hope not.

> > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and such.
> are this dinos still serving somewhere?
> > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 systems.
> I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of
> migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production
> server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ...

Ah, hardware bigotry.  Your colors are showing.

> > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI.  Let's just look
> > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI.
> I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do
> it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K
> 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ
> is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is
> becoming a valid option for small servers.

And your testing methodogy was...what?

Small servers?  No, let's talk about 'servers', not just 'small

Very high disk I/O requires more than NCQ and 10K RPM disks, though if
you have a 'need' of disk space over performance, then SATA will be
your bitch as the cost (vs size) of SCSI vs SATA do change things.

Not all of us use small servers, though.

Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list