> one of the reasons for this is that the FreeBSD kernel was
> compiled from source and the Linux one wasn't.. redhat's stock kernels are
> "jack of all trades, masters of none" and 'optimized' for 386. heh. if you
What! That makes no sense. A compiled kernel is different from a
non-compiled one? Someone compiled it once. He said he didn't make any
changes to the FreeBSD kernel except recompile. I will be shocked to
hear he sees any difference in a kernel recompile.
That said. we are tracking down an linux OS kernel problem today in
pre-7.0 where read-aheads are turned off when a seek is performed on the
file. I have downloaded the linux kernel 2.2.0, and I see the cause is
that only repeated reads/writes without a seek cause file system
readahead.
Other OS's check to see if a previous read-ahead was used, and control
read-ahead that way. Much better. Or am I making an eroneous
comparison? This was a real-world test where someone is saying pre-7.0
is slower for sorting.
> so, all in all, my plea would be to refrain from making eroneous comparisons
> between systems.. the only useful comparisons are tests that are reflective of
> the real world.. (e.g. w/windows you CAN'T compile the OS, so that's that...
> with linux and bsd you most deffinitely SHOULD compile... ) i understand the
> enthusiasm for your OS of choice. however, if you give misleading information
> and someone actually tries it out and finds that what you said wasn't exactly
> accurate, how does reflect on your OS? answer: not very well.
Are you telling him not to say anything about what he sees?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
