From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 16 14:49:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5C616A4DE for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:49:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D6643D45 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:49:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8410C290C6B for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12330-04 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-179-167.eastlink.ca [24.224.179.167]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C794290C38 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1027) id 0ADD14882D; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035AE3BC76 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:36 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:35 -0300 (ADT) From: User Freebsd To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060716114546.B1799@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Is 6.x slower then 4.x ... ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:49:31 -0000 I've read/seen reports on -questions about this ... especially in an SMP environment ... Is there any truth to this? One person that posted on -questions pointed out that when he tried to point out the difference, he was told one of: > a. It is either your hardware sucks > b. your benchmark application sucks Now, I don't hold with the 'your hardware sucks' response, as long as one is testing on the same hardware, the hardware itself should affect the results between releases ... But, is there any "officially recognized set of tests" that one can use that ppl here accept to negate the chances of b? Finally, has anyone here done a set of 'accepted tests' and built up a report that could be linked to from the main page to refute (or vindicate?) the claims that the newer releases are getting slower? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664