On 2013/06/13 20:01, Remy Nonnenmacher wrote:
On 06/13/13 13:32, Mark Felder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:58:49 -0500, David O'Brien
wrote:
We found FreeBSD 8.4 to perform better than FreeBSD 9.1, and Linux
considerably better than both on the same machine.
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:31:19 -0500, David O'Brien
wrote:
10-CURRENT results were in
http://people.freebsd.org/~obrien/jbm/vanitygen/vanity-perf-graph.png
as "fbsd10". Or are you suggesting something else?
Whoops, I missed fbsd10 on that graph. Sorry!
___
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:32:41AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> The CPUs between those machines are quite different.
I wouldn't say they are "quite" different. It's not like comparing
Netburst to Core2, or I believe even original Core2 to Sandybridge.
I may be wrong, I've not followed Intel cores
On 06/13/13 13:32, Mark Felder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:58:49 -0500, David O'Brien
wrote:
We found FreeBSD 8.4 to perform better than FreeBSD 9.1, and Linux
considerably better than both on the same machine.
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=241246
The above link i
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:58:49 -0500, David O'Brien
wrote:
We found FreeBSD 8.4 to perform better than FreeBSD 9.1, and Linux
considerably better than both on the same machine.
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=241246
The above link is likely why 8.4 is better than 9.1 on
