>>If this is what you measured, the results look fairly competitive.
>>Thanks for performing this real-world test and posting this info.
>
>
>As I was saying to gnn offlist, you can look at these numbers all sorts of
>ways
In fact this type of result is not surprising at all, it has already been
f
At 04:06 PM 10/20/2006, Ed Maste wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:57:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> With all the threads about poor FreeBSD performance, I wanted to test
> it out myself to see how 64bit LINUX would compare using the same hardware.
[ snip ]
It seems your message ended up wit
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:57:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> With all the threads about poor FreeBSD performance, I wanted to test
> it out myself to see how 64bit LINUX would compare using the same hardware.
[ snip ]
It seems your message ended up with some unfortunate line wrapping,
which m
In response to Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> One strange thing is that FreeBSD thinks the box really has 5G of
> RAM, which is does not. Its just 4G However I am pretty sure
> thats just a cosmetic bug.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/troubleshoot.html#PAE
Cool
One of our larger db apps is our RT system
(http://bestpractical.com/). Our old RELENG_4 box was starting to
get long in the tooth, so it was time to put in faster disks (3ware
7000 in RAID1 vs 9500SX in RAID10) and more memory to help with
searches. Its not that CPU intensive, but it does
