Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:45:42 -0300 From: NOC Meganet <tec@mega.net.br> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x Message-ID: <200610150045.42927.tec@mega.net.br> In-Reply-To: <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG> References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote: > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of > > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production > > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... > > Ah, hardware bigotry. =A0Your colors are showing. > come on, it is what it is and performance in first place comes from the=20 hardware, it doesn't matter how hard you blow the elephant's ass without=20 wings the beast do not fly > > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. =A0Let's just look > > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > > > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > > becoming a valid option for small servers. > > And your testing methodogy was...what? counting Universal Time Units from beginning of the process until the end o= f=20 the process Hans =2D- Prowip Telecom Ltda AS 22706 A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200610150045.42927.tec>