> > > It appears, though I'd need to instrument the code more to be sure, > > > that the slowdown is coming from file I/O. Could it be that there > > > less concurrency or more overhead in FreeBSD file operations than > > > there is in Linux? Even with SoftUpdates turned on, the cache > > > volume mounted with -noatime, and aufs (which uses kqueues -- a > > > FreeBSD invention -- to optimize multithreaded disk access), the > > > benchmark shows FreeBSD losing out. Why? > > > > I have noticed an entry in GENERIC called > > > > device cpufreq > > > > Could this have any influence on the performance (on FreeBSD)? > > > > I saw this device late in the 7.0 release-process and I since I'm > > accustomed to comment out any devices and options I don't need I have > > commented this out as well. So I haven't performed any tests with and > > without this device. > > > > Cpufreq is for CPU frequency scaling. In the linux world, the cpufreq > daemon allows you to control your cpu speed and voltage using power > profiles and such, which makes it a definite power saving tool for > laptops. The cpufreq driver is already included with the Linux kernel, > so I'm going to assume that they've just implemented the cpufreq driver > in the kernel recently :) > > If enabled, it probably would have an impact on performance, however I > have lost the ability to test such a function since my laptop decides > not to POST anymore.
Yes, I did figure out what the purpose of this device was. :-) My point was that this could lead to lower benchmarks on servers if GENERIC is used. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"