Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

Danial Thom danial_thom at
Sat Oct 14 20:30:04 UTC 2006

--- Mike Horwath <drechsau at Geeks.ORG> 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.
> Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and
> such.
> Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86
> systems.
> > 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.
> I disagree.
> SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like
> SCSI.  Let's just look
> at spindle speed alone ignoring the other
> benefits of SCSI.

You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones
that just came out). They kick butt.
Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to use
them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get
maximum performance.


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

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list