From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 5 13:30:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24487 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:30:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24391 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA02154; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:27:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA07520; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:27:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19981005222711.23452@follo.net> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:27:11 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Reginald Perry , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD References: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F2FF@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <69CAF7F9AF57D2118D9A0000F881B4DD02F2FF@zsoexc1.zso.dec.com>; from Reginald Perry on Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 12:12:50PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Reginald Perry wrote: > Hi there, > There is an article in the Net Tools, From The Bench section of PC Magazine > talking about FreeBSD 2.2.7. Looks pretty factual, but there was one > confusing statement. They initially configured both machines with 128MB of > RAM. They then increased the RAM and noted that as you do this NT surpasses > FreeBSD in their performance measure. They state that this is because of a > cache limitation in Apache and FreeBSD. Is this true? Could someone describe > this in more detail if so? FreeBSD is tuned to have max performance when it get under load - ie, when it actually is doing something. There should not be any limitations to the use of cache - FreeBSD basically regard _everything_ as cache. Your entire RAM is just a cache for the disk. I'd guess the benchmark interpretation comes from the reviewer doing a wild guess on why FreeBSD was slower. BTW: How much was the difference? And how much did they increase the RAM size? Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message