On 22:56, Wed 09 Dec 09, Robert wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:13:15 -0500 > Donald Allen <donaldcal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Brad Tilley <b...@16systems.com> > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Donald Allen > > > <donaldcal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Certainly I agree with you that a blazingly fast but unstable > > >> and/or insecure system isn't worth much in most, if any, settings. > > >> On the other hand, a rock-solid, secure system that simply doesn't > > >> deliver the computations at the needed rate isn't worth much > > >> either. > > > > > > Can you cite a specific case where OpenBSD fails to meet your > > > computational need in detail? I'd like to see a real-world example > > > if you have one. > > > > I don't, and many times we don't have the luxury of having such > > examples or data. I'm in a different kind of real-world situation: I'm > > setting up a database server on a 4-core machine that is going to > > carry a heavy load -- it's performance will be critical to the success > > of the project -- and I need to choose the OS that gives me the best > > chance of meeting my performance and stability requirements. Since the > > database will be large, I'd really like to get this right the first > > time and don't have the time to do experiments/benchmarking to guide > > me. That's why I'm asking questions, hopefully to improve the > > probability of getting this right. > > > > /Don > > Hm, i'd say you sould use Linux for that. > No no, i am serious! > If your first install/testsystem put into production fucks up your > critical project, at least no one will try to blame it on OpenBSD. :) > > The way to go is to test the actual workload, on the actual hardware, > with the different operatingsystems and look what performs best for > yourself, because nobody else can do that. > Perhaps those last 5% (probably less) of speed may make a difference in > your case. > > I guess what you should be more worried about on a HUGE database > server with OpenBSD, is the "limit" of 4GB of RAM. > Just last month i have seen a database server being upgraded from 32GB > to 256GB of RAM because that was easier (to justify) for them than to > fix their horrible db layout.
That must have been sourceforge.net ;) No, seriously, you must be kidding here. That is seriously fucked up. -- Michiel van Baak mich...@vanbaak.eu http://michiel.vanbaak.eu GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD "Why is it drug addicts and computer aficionados are both called users?"
