On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, apparently.
Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC w
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.
On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom wrote:
> The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
> mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2
> sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS
> is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only
> use one of the cores. The concept that you
I will do some testing tonight with variations in the my.cnf file and post
the results tomorrow.
> At 03:20 PM 10/6/2006, Jerry Bell wrote:
>>I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I
>> expanded
>>them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them
>> bac
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones that just came
> out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to
> use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get maximum
> performance.
You are so completely wron
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC
> Prowip wrote:
> > Hi, I am hooking in here without any
> intention to fire things up but
> > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not
> only 4.11 is gone but
> > also i386 is practically marked to
--- NOC Prowip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor,
> nor
> > is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux
> scales
> > with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to
> keep
> > 4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
> >
>
>
> Hi, I am hooking in here wit
The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2
sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS
is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only
use one of the cores. The concept that you have
to fire up both of them just because they're
there is just
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Robert Joosten wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when
> > compiling world or untarring large files.
>
> Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it
> with a SCSI thing. Most scsi imp
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> > > isn 't this discussion certainly usel
Hi,
> but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when
> compiling world or untarring large files.
Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it with a
SCSI thing. Most scsi implementations I know are much more scalable when
there's a realworld load suc
On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but
> > also i386 is practically marked t
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but
> isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but
> also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems
> are.
Wow, I hope not.
Unles
> Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor
> is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales
> with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep
> 4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
>
Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but isn 't
this discussion cert
Unfortunately, the "certain tasks" are squid,
apache and networking applications, which are the
only viable reasons to use the OS commercially.
I've yet to hear 1 (thats *one*) commercial
vendor who built a product on 4.x claim to move
to 5 or 6 because of its superior performance.
The only ones I
15 matches
Mail list logo
