Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:06:52 +0100 From: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New != Faster Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0706051506l57903b0ev4eb12ded2e5a9cec@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070604223021.GA31853@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <20070604223021.GA31853@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/06/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: > > On 04/06/07, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >Tim Daneliuk wrote: > > >> Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP > > >> 50-60 min > > >> New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP > > >> 40-50 min > > >> Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP > > >> 8 min > > >> > > >> Is the difference in speed > > >> attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? > > > > > >Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being > > >faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and > > >between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 > > >to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes > > >2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a > > >result of "working harder" to find optimizations). > > > > > >FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except > > >compiling itself. :-) > > > > > >Colin Percival > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > >"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > > What about all the following observations? > > > > slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. > > s/especially//, unless you have further evidence I don't know about. > > > both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people > > so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true > > would be wrong. > > My detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am > aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk > I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it > is the "under QUOTA" part, which as you know from past discussions, is > still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to > address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? > > Kris > Having some hardware coming this week when thats all setup I will have a box available for testing patches. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3aaaa3a0706051506l57903b0ev4eb12ded2e5a9cec>