On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:17AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > A "me too" here for 5-Stable.
> >
> > I have a test PC, that was running 5-Stable using an
> > additional swapfile to extend swap space. Never any
> > problems at all with 5.
> >
> > After upgrading to 6-stable, I got regular hang-ups of
> > the system (endless loop?) when swapspace is used
> > extensively. Never happened with 5.
I didn't move until 5 until 5.2+; it was a major move.
There were lots of things to get-right. So maybe by
6.5, 6 will be granite stable.
I've been using FBSD since 2.0.5, and while lots of solid
features have been thoughtfully added, I just don't see
that 6 buys that much more than 5.x. Maybe 7.x, tho...
gary
>
> I have to add my vote for 6, as did someone else in an earlier post.
> Like some others, I always found 5.x a bit slower than 4.x (No
> benchmarks, completely subjective.) From the very beginning, I've found
> 6.x to be stable and quickly moved some non-critical servers to it.
>
> After testing, we moved the more critical servers to it as well, and
> have been quite happy withe results.
>
> Again, completely subjective, but from the beginning 6.x seemed faster
> and more responsive than 5.x
>
Hmm. A series of benchmarks might prove some points.
Back in Aug, 2001 I ran stress tests and other benchmarks
to test *this* hardware. I pushed things to a loadave of
> 70. Everything held.
Maybe we should consider something like this. A series of
hard stress tests as well as objective benchmarks as we go
forward. It would give one some metrics... .
gary
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public service Unix
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
