--Apple-Mail-1--399754265
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jan 24, 2008, at 22:58 , william wong wrote:
> That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using
> FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment?
>
> 2008/1/25, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no>:
>> "william wong" <beijing.liangjie@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
>>>> "william wong" <beijing.liangjie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's.
>>>> Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a =20
>>>> while, then
>>>> switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly =20=
>>>> more
>>>> stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7.
>>> Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not
>>> stable or does not perform or what?
>>
>> FreeBSD 5 was not a very good series. It was released late and had
>> issues with both stability and performance. FreeBSD 6 corrected the
>> stability issues and some of the worst performance issues. FreeBSD 7
>> took care of the remaining performance issues; it may not be as =20
>> fast as
>> 4 was on UP, but it beats Linux on SMP.
>>
>> (there's no point in comparing SMP performance between 4 and 7 =20
>> since 4
>> had a single-threaded kernel and practically no userland thread =20
>> support)
>>
>> DES
>> --
>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
>>
Please do not top post.
The reason Juniper and Cisco are probably using FreeBSD is because of =20=
the license that FreeBSD is under (BSD-License) versus the Linux =20
kernels GPL.
Bert JW Regeer
--Apple-Mail-1--399754265--