Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:55:29PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote:
> > Well... you can't get much newer to BSD than me. So, most likely I have no
> > place in this thread at all (please be gentle). And I certainly do not
> > want to get in the middle of so
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:55:29PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote:
> Well... you can't get much newer to BSD than me. So, most likely I have no
> place in this thread at all (please be gentle). And I certainly do not
> want to get in the middle of something that appears to be on the virge of
> beco
Well... you can't get much newer to BSD than me. So, most likely I have no
place in this thread at all (please be gentle). And I certainly do not
want to get in the middle of something that appears to be on the virge of
becoming personal...
But
I was experiencing very VERY poor performan
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:08:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/30/04 12:03:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Perhaps at this point you should go and do that, and avoid yourself
> >any further embarrassment.
> I have read it, and I don't equat
In a message dated 9/30/04 12:03:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Perhaps at this point you should go and do that, and avoid yourself
>any further embarrassment.
I have read it, and I don't equate "might be some regressions in performance"
to
mean "more than twice as slow"
On 9/29/2004 at 11:27 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I'll post some numbers after trying it. But its pretty frightening to
|think that one release has such major changes. Sounds like (yet another)
|crapshoot. ...
=
If you had taken the time to read and understand the release notes you
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:27:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/29/04 7:02:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >See the Early Adopter's Guide that was distributed with 5.2.1, or just
> >don't worry about it and update to 5.3 which has vastly better
In a message dated 9/29/04 7:02:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>See the Early Adopter's Guide that was distributed with 5.2.1, or just
>don't worry about it and update to 5.3 which has vastly better network
>performance.
>
>Kris
I'll post some numbers after trying it. But i
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 05:51:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I was had a nice little test set up, I figured I'd test Freebsd 4.9
> against 5.2.1 since I had fresh installs handy on separate drives.
> The simple test was as follows:
>
> Hardware:
>
> Celeron 2.4Ghz processor
> Dual
At 5:51 PM -0400 9/29/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I was had a nice little test set up, I figured I'd test
Freebsd 4.9 against 5.2.1 since I had fresh installs handy on
separate drives.
It would be interesting to try a fresh install of the most recent
5.3-beta ISO's. A lot has changed betwe
While I was had a nice little test set up, I figured I'd test Freebsd 4.9
against 5.2.1 since I had fresh installs handy on separate drives.
The simple test was as follows:
Hardware:
Celeron 2.4Ghz processor
Dual onboard Intel (em) NICs, 32bit, 33Mhz bus
Setup:
Traffic Generator -> FreeBSD Sys
11 matches
Mail list logo
