performance on many systems is very hard to gauge. I think this is something mostly left up to the individual, as hardware-software combinations truly make up the performance of a system. On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Jon Noack wrote: > On 04/24/05 18:29, /dev/null wrote: >> <snip> >> >> needed. All in all life on 5.x and the "upgrade" wasn't too bad. I will >> say that there is ONE issue that I have found and have not yet solved. It >> now takes at least 2 times longer to build any of the ports. Performance >> in other areas seems to be lagging as well. I have since upgraded one of >> the 2 servers to 5.4-RC2 and have been chasing 5.x ever since hoping to >> find the performance issues will dissappear. > > If you are running a UP system, it is expected that 4.x will outperform 5.x > in many situations due to the focus on SMP. Optimizing synchronization to > increase performance is one of the main goals for 6.x (see the recent work on > critical sections, for example). This will allow us to scale well on SMP > systems without pessimizing performance on UP systems. > > Another point to remember is that compilation times with GCC 3.4 (default for > recent 5.x) are much longer than those with 2.95 (default for 4.x), > especially at higher optimization levels. This is one of the main reasons > why it takes longer to compile a port. > > That said, in what specific areas are you seeing performance regressions? > > Jon > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Sun Apr 24 2005 - 22:01:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:32 UTC