Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

[Eric Anderson]

On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> --- Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> Quoting Dan Lukes <dan at obluda.cz> (from Thu, 12
>> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>>
>> [moved from security@ to performance@]
>>
>>> 	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 situation and believe in
>> it's stability.
>>
>> You can't be sure that a committer has the
>> resources to setup an  
>> environment where he is able to reproduce your
>> performance problems.  
>> You on the other hand have hands-on experience
>> with the performance  
>> problem. If you are able to setup a -current
>> system (because there are  
>> changes which may affect performance already,
>> and it is the place  
>> where the nuw stuff will be developt) which
>> exposes the bad behavior,  
>> you could make yourself familiar with the pmc
>> framework  
>> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure
>> jkoshy@ will help if you  
>> have questions) and point out the bottlenecks
>> on current@ and/or  
>> performance@ (something similar happened for
>> MySQL, and now we have a  
>> webpage in the wiki about it). Without such
>> reports, we can't handle  
>> the issue.
>>
>> Further discussion about this should happen in
>> performance@ or current at ...
>>
>> Bye,
>> Alexander.
>>
> 
> Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
> to come out of its world of delusion and come to
> terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
> knows: In how ever many years of development,
> there is still no good reason to use anything
> other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't
> support a lot of newer harder. There is no
> performance advantage in real world applications
> with multiple processors, and the performance is
> far worse with 1 processor.
> 
> 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 MP. Come to terms with it,
> PLEASE, because it is the case and saying
> otherwise won't change it. 
> 
> My prediction is that a  year from now we'll all
> be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be
> looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs.

My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going 
to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with 
FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance 
gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc..

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




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------