Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:45:16 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: tundra@tundraware.com Cc: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster Message-ID: <4664CE3C.4010108@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <46646FCC.9060908@tundraware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Daneliuk wrote: > Chris wrote: >> On 04/06/07, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote: >>> > Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >>> > 50-60 min >>> > New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP >>> > 40-50 min >>> > Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >>> > 8 min >>> > >>> > Is the difference in speed >>> > attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? >>> >>> Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being >>> faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and >>> between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 >>> to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes >>> 2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a >>> result of "working harder" to find optimizations). >>> >>> FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except >>> compiling itself. :-) >>> >>> Colin Percival >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> What about all the following observations? >> >> slower network performance in 6.x especially worse under DDOS >> conditions. >> slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. >> >> both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people >> so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true >> would be wrong. My observation of 6.x is that whilst it can exceed >> 4.11 performance this is only because of more more powerful hardware >> and in particular on SMP systems where 4.11 isnt optimised but for UP >> and most older hardware the worst performance of post 4.11 is >> highlighted greatly. >> >> In thoery shouldnt eg. a 6.2 system using a 3ghz core 2 duo be >> multiple times faster then a pentium 3 500 running freebsd 4.11 due to >> the more powerful hardware? >> >> Chris > > It will be of academic interest to me to see how people respond to this. > Unfortunately - as documented in my original post - the 4.11 CD will > not even boot on this new motherboard for some reason. Given that, and > that 4.x is no longer actively developed, I am forced to move to 6.x for > my next server ... Most likely because of the evolution of the FreeBSD kernel and increased hardware support over time. A lot of CDs won't boot on my C2D system, but that's because the HW is too new to run with older CDs, similar to issues seen with other OSes like Linux and Windoze. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4664CE3C.4010108>