Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:21:13 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of 4.x vs 5.x (Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches) Message-ID: <42924949.1070902@incubus.de> In-Reply-To: <20050523211307.GA36552@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <20050523195123.GA13810@xor.obsecurity.org> <3482.172.16.0.199.1116882013.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <20050523211307.GA36552@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > One thing that probably confuses and misleads a lot of people is when > they build world or a kernel and notice that it's taking much longer > than it did under 4.x, so they assume this means that 5.x is slower > than 4.x. It doesn't. What it means is that 5.x and 4.x have > different C compilers, and gcc 3.x is much slower at compiling code > than gcc 2.x. You have to be very careful to draw conclusions based > on subjective assessments like this. Another thing might be that interactive response time seems to be worse. While I (or rather ports) unpack the firefox/thunderbird source, the machine is pretty much bogged down (mouse cursor jumps around, audio stutters...). Haven't seen that on FreeBSD since the 386 days. mkb.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42924949.1070902>