Re: New != Faster
On 04/06/07, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about all the following observations? slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. s/especially//, unless you have further evidence I don't know about. 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 detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it is the under QUOTA part, which as you know from past discussions, is still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? Kris Having some hardware coming this week when thats all setup I will have a box available for testing patches. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:06:52PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about all the following observations? slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. s/especially//, unless you have further evidence I don't know about. 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 detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it is the under QUOTA part, which as you know from past discussions, is still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? Kris Having some hardware coming this week when thats all setup I will have a box available for testing patches. Glad to hear it. It is kind of irritating that you keep loudly complaining about how terrible QUOTA performance is but have so far avoided participating in the solution to that problem. So, just to confirm, you do not in fact have evidence of poor disk performance apart from this? Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New != Faster
In the course of trying to work through some problems with a new MOBO, I did some speed test which I found sort of surprising: Old System -- Dual PIII 600Mhz w/768K Mem and Mylex RAID 5 with old 9G SCSI drived FBSD 4.11-Stable Writing a 1G file to /dev/null with dd reports about 26MB/sec New System -- Pentium D 3.2GHz w/2G Mem and SATA Drive reported running at SATA-150 FBSD 6.2-STABLE Writing a 2G file to /dev/null with dd reports about 50MB/sec So ... the new system should be much faster all the way around, right? H, not necessarily so. 'buildworld' is only about 17% faster on the new machine v. the old. I would think that with way faster processors and twice the disk bandwidth I would have seen far reduced buildworld times. So, I decided to check a known fast machine. The results: Procs Mem dd ReadOSbuildworld Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-stable/SMP8 min So, now I'm confused. These are all lightly loaded systems but the buildworld time does not scale even approximately by either CPU or I/O performance. What the heck is going on, I wonder? It is possible, I suppose that the New machine does not have SMP running properly on it, though 'top' shows two CPUs working away. Is the difference in speed attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? Unfortunately, I cannot get 4.11 to boot on the New machine - it does not like the hardware for some reason claiming: RTC BIOS diagnostic error 80clock battery Even after I change the RTC battery on the mobo. Strange ... any input appreciated. -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:54:18PM -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: In the course of trying to work through some problems with a new MOBO, I did some speed test which I found sort of surprising: Old System -- Dual PIII 600Mhz w/768K Mem and Mylex RAID 5 with old 9G SCSI drived FBSD 4.11-Stable Writing a 1G file to /dev/null with dd reports about 26MB/sec New System -- Pentium D 3.2GHz w/2G Mem and SATA Drive reported running at SATA-150 FBSD 6.2-STABLE Writing a 2G file to /dev/null with dd reports about 50MB/sec So ... the new system should be much faster all the way around, right? H, not necessarily so. 'buildworld' is only about 17% faster on the new machine v. the old. I would think that with way faster processors and twice the disk bandwidth I would have seen far reduced buildworld times. So, I decided to check a known fast machine. The results: Procs Mem dd ReadOS buildworld Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-stable/SMP8 min So, now I'm confused. These are all lightly loaded systems but the buildworld time does not scale even approximately by either CPU or I/O performance. What the heck is going on, I wonder? It is possible, I suppose that the New machine does not have SMP running properly on it, though 'top' shows two CPUs working away. Is the difference in speed attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? Unfortunately, I cannot get 4.11 to boot on the New machine - it does not like the hardware for some reason claiming: RTC BIOS diagnostic error 80clock battery Even after I change the RTC battery on the mobo. Strange ... any input appreciated. This comparison is 100% bogus. 4.11 and 6.2 are vastly different (the latter builds all sorts of different code, and uses a *different compiler* that is slower in compiling the code). When trying to compare something, you have to compare the *same* thing, or it's meaningless. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Kris Kennaway wrote: SNIP This comparison is 100% bogus. 4.11 and 6.2 are vastly different (the latter builds all sorts of different code, and uses a *different compiler* that is slower in compiling the code). When trying to compare something, you have to compare the *same* thing, or it's meaningless. I figured it had to be something like that. For the record, I wasn't complaining, merely curious... -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Colin Percival wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 So ... if I ran compute bound tests like SPECmark or some kind of I/O intensive tests, I should expect better runtime performance from 6.2 than 4.11... I can live with that :) -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will not regret it, and wait FreeBSD 7.0 real powerful SMPing which done on it. I run heavily MySQL 5.0.41 app on itm and it's way faster than running it in 6.2-STABLE with C2D 6600 and 2 GB of ram. -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about all the following observations? slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. s/especially//, unless you have further evidence I don't know about. 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 detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it is the under QUOTA part, which as you know from past discussions, is still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it is the under QUOTA part, which as you know from past discussions, is still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? Kris Kris - It's been awhile since I tracked -current, so forgive me if this is a stupid question but ... Is it the case that the 6.x drivers are all now SMP-safe or do some still live under GIANT? -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:07:31PM -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it is the under QUOTA part, which as you know from past discussions, is still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? Kris Kris - It's been awhile since I tracked -current, so forgive me if this is a stupid question but ... Is it the case that the 6.x drivers are all now SMP-safe or do some still live under GIANT? There are still some storage drivers in 6.x that are giant-locked. Note that in most cases this doesn't really matter, since typically there is very little else on the system that uses Giant, so there is little contention with other systems and performance is good. One situation where it would hurt on 6.x is if you have quotas enabled. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Chris wrote: On 04/06/07, Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K26M/sec4.11-stable/SMP 50-60 min New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec6.2-stable/SMP 40-50 min Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G130M/sec4.11-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
Garrett Cooper wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: 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 This is, of course, the normal order of technology progress. It just seems odd to me that the 4.11 CD is blowing up claiming an RTC error on a new mobo. I'd understand if it failed because it could not recognize the processor, or the Northbridge/Southbridge hardware, but I'm guessing that not a lot has changed with RTC hardware. Then again, this error could be an artifact of some other silent problem. In any case, I am working on recreating my (rather complex) standard server configuration on 6.2 ... it was time anyway. I will miss 4.x, however. It has been rock solid with nary a blip for many years now (as was 2.x and 3.x before it). Maybe I'm just getting old ;) -- Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New != Faster
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:37:02PM -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old ;) I think that goes without saying. We're *all* getting old, at exactly the same rate. Some of us got a head start, though. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Thomas McCauley: The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
