Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

[Petr Janda <elekktretterr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my opinion what the FreeBSD team should have done considering the 
number of developers and the approach they took towards SMP is to have 2 
version of freebsd, one optimized for UP(perhaps 4.x) and 5.x for SMP. 
Therefore 6.x would be an upgrade for UP optimized 4.x and 7.x upgrade 
for optimized SMP.

Petr

bsdude@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I have to say that I agree with most of DT comments regarding the state of
> FreeBSD5+, after having watched the progress (or lack there of) for over
> three years.
>
> <snip>�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.�
> <snip>
>
> It seems that the complexity (and pollution) of the code base has
> increased with each release. With this the developers that are able to
> track down and fix bugs seem �few and far between� with the overall
> complexity of the code base (the ULE scheduler, current problems with the
> threading model, etc). I wish that 4.X was still supported in a way too,
> until DF had a fully threaded network stack (that does seem to be a ways
> off yet). When this is accomplished, there probably will not be much
> reason to run any of the other flavors of BSD like DT mentioned�.
>
>   My day job I am involved with sys admin and dB admin on large
> multiprocessor HPUX systems running 11.11 and Oracle 10gR2. I am very
> impressed with the amount of work that has been done with DF given the
> relatively few number of developers, and resources compared to FreeBSD.
> I look forward to what will be accomplished in the next year with great
> anticipation!
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>