Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Tue Oct 17 08:48:34 UTC 2006
Quoting Chris <chrcoluk at gmail.com> (from Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:00:54 +0100):
> On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood <markir at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> He might have got further by volunteering to create and supply profiles
>> for those specific workloads that were faster in 4.x than 6.x on UP
>> machinery etc... i.e. help make 6.x better rather than discourage the
>> development team (whose efforts are much appreciated by the rest of us
>> that are happily using 6.x...)
> I recently ordered some servers from a datacentre on lease, specs were
> UP p4 2.8ghz gig of ddr2 ram and sata hd, intel lan card. None of the
> servers would boot in freebsd 6.x, they booted in freebsd 4.x but
> needed a pata controller, they only worked properly in freebsd 5.x.
What's the Problem Report number of your bug report? Does it contain
the error message of the problem (if there's one), a detailed
description of the hardware, and anything else what may be
interesting to know about this situation?
> It seems their are 2 major problems with freebsd at the moment (1) is
> the hardware support is still way behind both linux and windows and
> its very frustrating in the amount of datacentres that dont support
> freebsd. and (2) the uniprocessor performance remains below par.
What's the PR number of your report where you describe under which
specific load (and how to produce/simulate this load) it doesn't
perform as fast as other operating systems?
MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way.
-- Henry Spencer
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
More information about the freebsd-performance