| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Daniel Armyr wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if a Gentoo server was significantly |
| 6 |
>> faster than a CentOS 5 (RHEL 5 clone) server on a high-intensity |
| 7 |
>> server workload. But I have tried a lot of distros for scientific |
| 8 |
>> workstations, and Gentoo does seem to have an advantage there. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I would have to agree. The performance gains in Gentoo tend to (In the |
| 11 |
> Real World(tm) ) come from not having a bunch of crap instaled an |
| 12 |
> running that hogs memory rather than from using a particular set of |
| 13 |
> optimizing flags. Further, real-word servers ten to be built with some |
| 14 |
> performance margin in order to handle load spikes, so a few percent |
| 15 |
> here and there wouldn't really be measurable, assuming you compare to a |
| 16 |
> system that isn't bloated. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Further,this list has averaged at about one post per month since around |
| 19 |
> 2003 when I joined, so don't expect to gett too many replies from here. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> --DA |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Except, of course, from a professional Linux performance engineer who |
| 24 |
runs Gentoo scientific workstations at home. :) |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iD8DBQFGNNNOaZUb+jwczfoRAh71AKC4XN2z1vAqpk+ireB0IuNFZeYFuACgwjre |
| 30 |
YiQqQ3ddLvbOhUwR/GcuATg= |
| 31 |
=Bwoa |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
Archives