Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:12 AM
To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message -
From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chad Leigh
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I wanted to ask if there is some sort of channel whereby he could be
given active support
See a need, fill a need. Since you can clearly see the person wasn't given
adequate information, then go ahead and give him the information. Unless
people like you and me and the
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone
@Promise to the scsi mailing list?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html
And, did you notice the followup to that message?
It directed the poster to submit a PR with 'patch' for it.
Joao Barros wrote:
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone
@Promise to the scsi mailing list?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html
I wanted to reply about this post but I'm hesitating because I know
there are more people who talk than
: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view when it
comes to making technology decisions.
Then start with yourself. You don't have an objective view.
We've made bad technology work,
and I've seen free software cost more than
: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: RE: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Dude, I'm not a MS lackey. I just don't trust tech fanatics. They are on
par with Hezbollah.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 29
- Original Message -
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Joao Barros wrote:
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone
@Promise to the scsi mailing list?
http
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Please explain? Because I like people to have an objective view
when it
comes to making technology decisions. We've made bad technology work,
and I've seen free
: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about.
Oh, a person who writes a god damn book about integrating both MS solutions
and
FreeBSD? See http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/
You just proved to the world your talking out your ass.
Ted
- Original Message -
From: Josh Paetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Friday 28 July 2006 23:56, Ted Mittelstaedt
:28 AM
To: Nikolas Britton
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care,
since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be
losing not buying their products isn't
: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message -
From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent
29, 2006 11:42 PM
To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message -
From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:42 PM
To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message -
From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED
-
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:01 PM
To: Born, Clinton
Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 30, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Dude, I'm not a MS
On Friday 28 July 2006 23:56, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The people who are willing to be open minded will use a mix of
tools from Microsoft and the rest of the world, and the people who
are closed minded will use tools from Microsoft, and neither is
going to pay any attention to whatever
Yawn You are exactly what I'm talking about.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:56 PM
To: Born, Clinton; Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD
: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
- Original Message -
From: Born, Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Born, Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent
Morons proliferate this list.
-Original Message-
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:55 AM
To: Born, Clinton
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:39 AM
At 6:30 PM -0600 7/27/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to
allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!
That is not as easy as you make it out to be. WHat one might in the
short term see as the best tool may
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
What we really need is score card to keep track of the good and bad
companies. Someone with initiative could have this up and running in a
day or less... After it's up we can put a BIG HONKING LINK on the
FreeBSD main page.
On 7/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to
allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!
That is not as easy as you make it out to be.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Amitabh Kant wrote:
I see the whole issue this way: companies are free to choose whether to
support FreeBSD or not, and I am free to choose/recommend their product
in my installations. It's only when we start to speak with our money
bags, that it will make commercial
On Jul 28, 2006, at 1:25 PM, jan gestre wrote:
On 7/28/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to
allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!
On 7/29/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care,
since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be
losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they
didn't already believe ...
The
On Jul 28, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Amitabh Kant wrote:
On 7/29/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care,
since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be
losing not buying their products isn't telling
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care,
since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be
losing not buying their products isn't telling them anything they
didn't already
On 7/28/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:16:55PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
And my point is that those not supporting FreeBSD already don't care,
since as far as they are concerned, their is no market for them to be
losing not buying their products
And on the subject, has anyone noticed this email from someone
@Promise to the scsi mailing list?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2006-July/002543.html
--
Joao Barros
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
- Original Message -
From: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Amitabh Kant [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail
- Original Message -
From: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Amitabh Kant [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nikolas Britton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail
To: Born, Clinton
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to
allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period
Questions
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Born, Clinton wrote:
Really? I wouldn't want such a myopic view when choosing to
allocate our
shareholders dollars. Best tool for the job. Period!
That is not as easy as you make it out
- Original Message -
From: User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Questions
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD
:59 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd
How many out there are *still* running 4.x on their servers and desktops, for
similar fears?
We still have some old Compaq ML530 machines running FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p17.
They provide essential web services, mainly authentication and MySQL databases.
FreeBSD 5.x and 6.0 can't boot on this
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People
including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results,
then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming
the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why
- Original Message -
From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting
On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
ability to use
: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On 7/27/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions
On 7/27/06, jan gestre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
Adaptec that this issue would not
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:50:57PM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote:
Except most of the people using FreeBSD in a professional setting are
pretty high up on the IT/IS/MIS food chain. If a product doesn't work
on my platform of choice then there's no way in hell I'll approve it's
uses on other
And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
have support for FreeBSD. For me, this is more so in case of RAID
cards.
On 7/27/06, Nikolas Britton
: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And this is what I always do. As a person responsible for
recommending/approving/buying harware related stuff for few different
companies, I make it a point that I *prefer* only those brands that
have
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amitabh Kant
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:28 AM
To: Nikolas Britton
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
And this is what I always do. As a person
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three
servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year
old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting
everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could provide
some very detailed traces, and core
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't
support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.
Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3
and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Philippe Lang wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've recently been experiencing lock ups with the three
servers that I've upgraded to 6.x ... one of which is 1 year
old, the other two are 3 years old ... after getting
everything setup with DDB, to the point that I could
On 7/26/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't
support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.
Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote:
We need an Internet store that only stocks compatible hardware. It
should include all the BSDs as well as Linux, Mac OS X, and any other
non Microsoft OS. On the site they can just list whats compatible with
what and customers
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote:
On 7/26/2006 07:35, User Freebsd seems to have typed:
The point is, if we keep acting as individuals, vendors will treat as
unimportant ... if we start acting like an organization, and actually
*lobby* these vendors for better support, maybe they
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
* No binary blob drivers.
This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out
with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with
that ... I just want to know that if I *have* a problem with a piece of
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
* No binary blob drivers.
This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out
with a *supported* iir driver, but it was binary only, I'd be happy with
that ... I
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Peter A. Giessel wrote:
On 7/26/2006 10:34, User Freebsd seems to have typed:
Supporting 3ware is good, but what if/when Adaptec buys them out ...
Adaptec doesn't officially support FreeBSD, therefore, anyone they buy out
would most likely change their policy accordingly
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:36:51PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Nikolas Britton wrote:
* No binary blob drivers.
This is one that I don't necessarily agree with ... if Adaptec came out
with a *supported* iir driver, but it was
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:48:52PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
My point isn't that I *liked* binary-only drivers ... my point is that I'd
rather a company like Adaptec to *at least* supply a binary driver if they
require their specs to be closed, then provide *no means* for me to use
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
consumer-hostile, unless you fit their perfect picture of consumer.
On 2006-07-26 18:59, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Do you see that if support in 4.x had been based on open specs from
Adaptec that this issue would not exist? Adaptec is controlling your
ability to use their product, and that's the real problem. It's
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero* support cost
for the hardware vendor. They don't even _have_ to make a driver for
their hardware. What they *can* do though is reply to requests for an
open source driver with: ``Piss off! We have you the
:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
1000s
- Original Message -
From: Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
If the technical specifications are open, there is *zero
: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Ted,
On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.
How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Oops, forgot about that. Use 5.x then. The statement is that newer
versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions. The point was that
this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I already cited.
IMHO, I'm not so concerned about my
On 7/25/06, User Freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Oops, forgot about that. Use 5.x then. The statement is that newer
versions of FreeBSD are slower than older versions. The point was that
this isn't relevant to 90% of users for reasons I
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.
Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3 and 5.4
for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and 4800/4805SAS
On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
ICP Vortex is an Adaptec company and Adaptec doesn't
support FreeBSD.
We've already been over this once.
Not to disagree with you, but Adaptec put new drivers for 5.3
and 5.4 for their 2420, 2820, 2320SLP, 2130SLP, and
- Original Message -
From: Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greg Barniskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail
Ted,
On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.
How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes: Support for
80386 processors (the I386_CPU kernel
On 7/24/06, Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted,
On 24/07/06, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you have to do to see this is try booting FBSD 6 on a 80386
and compare it's performance to FBSD 3.X on a 386.
How are you going to do that, Ted? From the 6.0R release notes:
On 7/24/06, Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikolas,
On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100
dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you
going to do with it? Play solitaire?
You have
vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
performance
]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD
Nikolas,
On 24/07/06, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be like running Windows 3.1 on a brand new Xeon 5100
dual-core CPU... sure it will run fast* but what the hell are you
going to do with it? Play solitaire?
You have this the wrong way round. The correct allusion
: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
the problem is that none of the Tier 1
hardware manufacturer's support
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie.
Adaptec / Intel) appear to be
dropping support for it as well ...
But companies like 3Ware
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
the problem is that none of the Tier 1
hardware manufacturer's support
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places (ie.
Adaptec / Intel) appear to be
dropping support for it as well ...
But companies
--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
the problem is that none of the Tier 1
hardware manufacturer's support
FreeBSD, and a growing number of places
(ie.
Adaptec / Intel) appear to be
dropping
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to
me... but maybe that's just me!
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
--- Nick Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
Just thought I should metion that this comes
across as rude to
me... but maybe that's just me!
--- Francisco Reyes
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
least not for a long time.
So don't enable SMP on a
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1.
Nick Withers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Head in the sand Jerry mumbled:
Just thought I should metion that this comes across as rude to
me... but maybe that's just me!
No, it's not you.
Mr. Thom thoroughly obscures the fact that
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
wrote:
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom
wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
system
adds
Burying your head in the sand is a common method
used by stupid people that have no answer to the
truth. I don't blame you; you guys don't want
your employers to know that you've wasted man
1000s of their dollars because you don't know the
performance characteristics of the hardware
you've
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
wrote:
SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors
can do more work than
FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor.
That is a fact.
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Danial Thom
wrote:
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom
wrote:
SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors
can
On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system
adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at
least not for a long time.
So don't enable
On 2006-07-13 11:31, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the deal, Chad. On this list, all the college-kid sysadmins
tell me how great FreeBSD is, but on the freebsd-performance list,
none of the developers refute my findings. If that doesn't tell you
something, then you really don't
- Original Message -
From: Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD-Questions Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting
- Original Message -
From: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote
[deleted]
In my case, it comes down to two words: remote administration ... HP is
the only system I've yet found that has it integrated as part of the
hardware ...
You will also find hardware integrated remote administration inside
IBM and Sun machines. They both run off residual power. So as
On 6/29/06, David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other selling point for me on HP was the 2.5 SAS drives ... our new
servers have 4x72G SAS drives in a 1U space, which means I can do RAID1+0
SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
in the server market in
On 6/29/06, Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to SAS drives.
They're great, really. But so far I've yet
On 6/29/06, David Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/29/06, Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SAS drives are coming in strong. It's what all new machines will have
in the server market in upcoming years. Just take a look at new
machines from Sun, IBM and HP, they all switched to
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:41 AM, David Robillard wrote:
Well, there are two issues here: access time (rpm) and storage
capacity (GB). The access time deals with rotational speed of the
drives (rpm) while storage capacity (GB) does not care how fast the
drive spins.
There is a third and that is
Marc G. Fournier writes:
So, my question above, and a public call to -core, or anyone else:
What can we, as a community, due to improve this situation?
How about buying from vendors that specifically support FreeBSD.
http://freebsdsystems.com
http://ixsystems.com
and surely others.
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
