Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

Danial Thom danial_thom at
Sat Oct 14 20:21:31 UTC 2006

--- NOC Prowip <tec at> wrote:

> > 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.
> Hans

Every "real-world" test with 64-bit builds I'v
done is so slow its not even usable in my view.
The larger code causes things to fall out of the
cache faster, and caching is more important to
performance than 64-bit processing.

Just because 64-bit is there doesn't mean you
have to use it or should. If you don't need more
than 4GB then its just plain stupid to use a
64-bit OS, at least with the current state of


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list