Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:57:16 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@mindbender.serv.net> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fxp0 and full duplex Message-ID: <199711031657.JAA07309@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711031000.CAA00941@MindBender.serv.net> References: <199711030544.VAA07343@bubble.didi.com> <199711031000.CAA00941@MindBender.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > * > Do you know, for a fact, that MS IP stacks (from Win95 thru NT Server) > > * > are significantly less efficient than the BSD variety? Or are you > > * > just slamming MS for the hell of it? [ Many stories deleted where FreeBSD outperformed Win95/NT on indentical hardware ] > >That is the speed of ftp transfer of large files from disk to disk. > >(Of course, this could be the filesystem and not the network driver, > >but it's just a single datapoint anyway.) > > I wouldn't be surprised if this is also at least partially to do with > "suckage" in the ftp client. The NT ftp and telnet clients have been > known to suck badly in many other ways. I never mentioned ftp in my statements, although I can't give 'real' #'s to back it up. Doing clock timing tests on an idle network from a Win95 box to a NT Server (4.0-latest patchlevel (3 or 4, don't remember), we're getting ~100K/minute using 'network neighberhood', or whatever M$ calls their network. Heck, NFS on the same hardware get's about 500-600K/sec. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711031657.JAA07309>