Re: New != Faster

2007-06-05 Thread Chris
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-05 Thread Kris Kennaway
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/sec

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Colin Percival
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Tim Daneliuk
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Tim Daneliuk
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Chris
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Tim Daneliuk
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/sec

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Tim Daneliuk
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Garrett Cooper
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 3G

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Tim Daneliuk
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

Re: New != Faster

2007-06-04 Thread Chad Perrin
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: