On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:17:31PM -0500, Derrick T. Woolworth wrote:
> Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using
> CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x?
>
> The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to
> believe you're not
Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using
CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x?
The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to
believe you're not really trying to solve any problems.
D
On 10/12/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PRO
No one said freebsd 6.0 is useless, but I promise
you that 4.x could do any "router" job better
than 6.0. And everyone on the FreeBSD team knows
it. The point is not the freebsd 5+ can't do a
job; its that it doesn't do a job better than
4.x.
DT
--- "Derrick T. Woolworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrot
--- Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > The right thing to do is to port the SATA
> support
> > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
> both.
> > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
> and
> > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away
> from
> > ever being
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Jerry Bell wrote:
> > I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> > [...]
> > changed the clock to TSC
>
> As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
>
> Or did that change recently?
What a load...
Here's a report...
I have over 800 nodes installed in the field with FreeBSD 6.0 running
as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with 256MB of RAM. They
run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, dual-firewall with custom NetGraph
module for Wireless MAC authentication. The company
Please do not feed the trolls.
-Kip
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
>
> --- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
> >
> > [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED
>
> Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up
> hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs
> repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's
> what people do, and that's the beauty of open source.
>
>
> Eric
>
I agree, however, there appears
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
> The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
> and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
> 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
> FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
> ever being any good at
On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not
competitive replacement for
4.x.
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>
> [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The main problem is - 6.x is still not
> competitive replacement for
> > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about
performance in some situatio
Jerry Bell wrote:
> I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> [...]
> changed the clock to TSC
As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
Or did that change recently?
Best regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz
13 matches
Mail list logo
