Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:09:55 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Gerry Weaver <gerryw@compvia.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD as an embedded platform Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonbPJpShnDRf5U9=ADwNXEkECG-2Z5G=sLgtSmEWE-Qfg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1443505254237.19221@compvia.com> References: <2c94e09af74b4417816cdd854f5529cb@MBX02C-ORD1.mex08.mlsrvr.com> <CAJ-VmonzaqLg=anFq%2Bf-Dq5s1OKYKBCfXH9YKqSJvTwzgrTnAA@mail.gmail.com> <1443505254237.19221@compvia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 September 2015 at 22:41, Gerry Weaver <gerryw@compvia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It wasn't anything exhaustive. I just ran some benchmarks on some of my c= ode. It is mainly oriented around networking and crypto. I also noticed a d= ifference in general system responsiveness. We have a couple of servers tha= t we use for virtualization storage that we upgraded to 10.1 for some infin= iband testing. We ended up rolling those back to 9.3 as well. I/We have not= attempted to rebuild with gcc yet as you suggested. Using a stock build is= preferred where possible. > > Disclaimer: I didn't intend this post to be a complaint. I fully understa= nd the reasoning behind the tool chain switch. I'm just wondering what othe= r folks are doing and what challenges, if any, they have encountered. Well, a lot has changed between 9 and 10. I'd rather we figure out what is not working well for you and fix it so you don't have to roll back. Otherwise you're going to be stuck on 9.3 when it goes EOL and then be forced to suffer the pain. :) So, what were the benchmarks, and how'd htey compare? -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonbPJpShnDRf5U9=ADwNXEkECG-2Z5G=sLgtSmEWE-Qfg>