>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-freebsd->[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:44 PM
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.3 Performance
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Mr Wat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr Watson,
As you are listed as the leader of the FreeBSD foundation, and you seem to be
the
only one willing to admit that FreeBSD 5.3 is not yet up to the performance
of 4.x,
doesn't in concern you that:
1) Freebsd 4.x is not being supported as a production O/S, and t
Mr Watson,
As you are listed as the leader of the FreeBSD foundation, and you seem to be
the
only one willing to admit that FreeBSD 5.3 is not yet up to the performance
of 4.x,
doesn't in concern you that:
1) Freebsd 4.x is not being supported as a production O/S, and the "support"
is
ending
I have noticed with all the work gone in to 5.x to optimise SMP
performance in return uniprocessor performance has suffered
considerably I think this is what the concerns are about? Will future
releases such as 5.4 remedy this by fixing the drop in performance on
uniprocessor machines?
Chris
On
* Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [0154 09:54]:
> Mark writes:
>
> M> Ah, this point fascinates me. Running for years? Do you ever have
> M> to recompile your kernel? :)
>
> Usually once when I first install the OS, then never again (unless I
> change something in the hardware, which I hard
On Sunday, 9 January 2005 at 20:48:56 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your "point" doesn't address the lack of support for major chipsets,
> so that users can utilitize the latest fast processors
> available. The point is that those using 4.x because of its
> performance advantages, cannot use i
Your "point" doesn't address the lack of support for major chipsets, so that
users can utilitize the latest fast processors available. The point is that
those using 4.x because of its performance advantages, cannot use it with the
latest processors because the MBs don't work in 4.x. THAT is the
I find in amazing that a discussion of how FreeBSD 5.3 sucks compared to 4.x
can segue into an discussion of FreeBSD vs Windows. I guess thats the politics
of computing. And also a commentary on the mentality of the kind of person
that uses FreeBSD.
__
Robert Watson writes:
RW> The problems I have on the Windows XP platform appear to come from a
RW> lack of robustness in the face of nasty application failure.
A problem with the Windows environment as a whole is that applications
tend to assume that they have the entire machine to themselves, an
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Mark wrote:
> > FreeBSD will run for years without a boot in many cases.
>
> Ah, this point fascinates me. Running for years? Do you ever have to
> recompile your kernel? :)
The longest personal uptime I've had is just under two years, and that was
for a UPS-backed natbox i
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Robert Watson writes:
>
> RW> All I know is that the XP bits don't crash every week, they crash every
> RW> three weeks. :-) My NT4 box crashed almost continuously.
>
> I have three machines, running FreeBSD, NT, and XP. All of them will
> run u
Mark writes:
M> Ah, this point fascinates me. Running for years? Do you ever have
M> to recompile your kernel? :)
Usually once when I first install the OS, then never again (unless I
change something in the hardware, which I hardly ever do). Windows
often has to be rebooted just to install a new
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony
> Atkielski
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:09 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.3 Performance
>
>
> Robert Watson writes:
>
> FreeBSD will run for years without a boot in many cases.
Ah, this point fascinates me. Running for years? Do you ever have
to recompile your kernel? :)
Mark
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb
Robert Watson writes:
RW> All I know is that the XP bits don't crash every week, they crash every
RW> three weeks. :-) My NT4 box crashed almost continuously.
I have three machines, running FreeBSD, NT, and XP. All of them will
run until I boot them. They don't crash, or at least I can't reme
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Entertainingly, at the company I work at, we only recently moved from
> > Windows NT 4 to Windows XP, despite the dramatic improvements in Windows
> > between those systems...
>
> dramatic improvements in XP over NT4? Robert, are you ill? ;-)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 4:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.3 Performance
>
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/6/05 4:51:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > 4.10 *is* supported, and 5.3 works "as advertised" - what the hell is your
> > *problem* exactly???
> Its been well documented that 5.3 does NOT work as advert
>The moment you start paying for development and support I'll agree with
>you.
Getting an incompetent like you to agree with me is so far from important
that
I can't help but smile about the thought of it
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
On Jan 6, 2005, at 11:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5.3 is not ready for production. 4.10 should be fully supported until
it is.
TM
The moment you start paying for development and support I'll agree with
you. When I need a particularly low per packet cost such as a firewall
I'll throw down so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<< snippage >>
***yaaawn***
Please don't feed the trolls.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROT
21 matches
Mail list logo
