On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker
wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
> > ..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and
> > benchmark it?
> >
> > I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance,
> >
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
> ..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and
> benchmark it?
>
> I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance,
> and if it is better how much better.
> But if this was an important
..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and
benchmark it?
I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance,
and if it is better how much better.
But if this was an important topic worthy of the science, then by all means
do test it on your particular
On 25 May 2015 at 20:05, Nick Holland wrote:
> Many seem to think tuning a firewall is like drag racing, where every 1%
> might be the difference between winning and losing. It isn't. It is
> like driving in traffic -- you can't go faster than any of a number of
> potential bottlenecks (speed li
On 05/25/15 18:41, Bill Buhler wrote:
> I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router
^^
> with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current
> performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the
I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router
with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current
performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually
faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago.
Thanks,
Bil
6 matches
Mail list logo
