brooks wrote @ Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:02:50 -0500: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:49:35AM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> FreeBSD 6 is slower than 4 for some things and faster for others. That > should be expected since fine grained locking involves increased numbers > of expensive atomic operations (which are particularly bad on Intel > P4 and Xeon systems). The gain is that we've got significantly more > parallelism in many areas (for example, see kris's I/O benchmarking > presented at BSDCan). Looking at it as a thought experiment, you should > expect microbenchmarks to perform worse, sometimes much worse. If > your application looks like those microbenchmarks that's going to be a > problem, if not it may or may not be. OK. Kris presented exactly one benchmark were 6 is better (30%) and that is with sync mounts. Sorry, but i don't know many people running async mounts. Since none of the benchmarks from people seem to have influence on you, why not provide benchmarks, application ones, that show that 6 is good in anything performance wise. Until then we keep thinking it is worse, since our benchmarking shows it to be worse (of course we are doing it all wrong ...). > In short the black and white question you are asking makes little > sense. :) It usually boils down to a black and white question like "Use or do not use?". -- Andy _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"