Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, security-officer@freebsd.org, performance@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) Message-ID: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061012152206.cttnwklqb4s00s8g@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > Quoting Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> (from Thu, 12 > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > [moved from security@ to performance@] > > > The main problem is - 6.x is still not > competitive replacement for > > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > hardware - I speaked about > > performance in some situation and believe in > it's stability. > > You can't be sure that a committer has the > resources to setup an > environment where he is able to reproduce your > performance problems. > You on the other hand have hands-on experience > with the performance > problem. If you are able to setup a -current > system (because there are > changes which may affect performance already, > and it is the place > where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > exposes the bad behavior, > you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > framework > (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > jkoshy@ will help if you > have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > on current@ and/or > performance@ (something similar happened for > MySQL, and now we have a > webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > reports, we can't handle > the issue. > > Further discussion about this should happen in > performance@ or current@... > > Bye, > Alexander. > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team to come out of its world of delusion and come to terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD knows: In how ever many years of development, there is still no good reason to use anything other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't support a lot of newer harder. There is no performance advantage in real world applications with multiple processors, and the performance is far worse with 1 processor. The right thing to do is to port the SATA support and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, PLEASE, because it is the case and saying otherwise won't change it. My prediction is that a year from now we'll all be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061012141930.41607.qmail>