On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of > > > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production > > > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... > > > > Ah, hardware bigotry. Your colors are showing. > > come on, it is what it is and performance in first place comes from > the hardware, it doesn't matter how hard you blow the elephant's ass > without wings the beast do not fly
There are many reasons why a 32bit OS will be needed, even on a 64bit hardware platform. Just because it says performance does not mean it must be the latest and greatest. Are you sure you aren't a plant from the Linux community? > > > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look > > > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > > > > > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > > > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > > > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > > > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > > > becoming a valid option for small servers. > > > > And your testing methodogy was...what? > > counting Universal Time Units from beginning of the process until > the end of the process One metric. Good job. Hope it didn't cause too much sweat. To the rest of the list - sorry for the sarcasm and jabs, I hate when people post ignorance laden messages because they must parrot others. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
