Subject: Re: Benchmark NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux
To: Alan Post <email@example.com>
From: David Maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/22/2003 09:04:22
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:35:31PM +0000, Alan Post wrote:
> In article <20031021221603.GA16254@mail>, David Maxwell wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:01:42PM +0000, Alan Post wrote:
> >> Yeah, but don't get too excited: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux 2.6
> >> were all unstable versions. I'll leave the Linux 2.4 flames for
> >> other people. :)
> > You failed to note that he updated to FreeBSD-current because
> > FreeBSD stable crashed on him
> Both on the 5.X tree, which is confusingly labelled and entirely
> > OpenBSD current because the OpenBSD release had significant
> > performance issues.
> I thought we were discussing stability? :)
You said "... don't get too excitied: " (about his comments that NetBSD
was the most stable) "... were all unstable versions."
I commented _why_ he decided to run unstable versions.
Mike Cheponis wrote:
> Be sure to see http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability today, as new benchmarks
> were done on 20 Oct 2003. Scroll down to "New Measurements".
> Looks like some serious things are still broken in -CURRENT.
Developers have already analyzed the work involved to improve several of
the test cases, as well as discussing how to create infrastructure to
David Maxwell, email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org -->
If you don't spend energy getting what you want,
You'll have to spend it dealing with what you get.