From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Nov 23 17:17:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20392 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:17:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (root@libya-227.ppp.hooked.net [206.169.227.227]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20382; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:17:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA17933; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:09:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:09:24 -0800 (PST) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" cc: Wei Weng , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance differences In-Reply-To: <199711232032.MAA29689@hub.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > Wei Weng wrote: > > > > check out : > > http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19970901S0125 > > for the result of performance tests on linux freebsd and windowsNT. > > FreeBSD was using 1/2 the memory used by the other systems. > FreeBSD was conservative in determinghte amount of memory > installed. The amount used is reported in the startup messages, > which the reviewers must have missed. > > they did not do the minimum of building a kernel to use > the larger amount of memory available The whole point of this was to test a machine "out of the box". I.E. doing as little customization as possible. If they had tested with 3.0 (a.k.a. -current) which sizes >64M OTH, methinks that FreeBSD would have come out on top. - alex