From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 24 03:29:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4961065696 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:29:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4797F8FC08 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29580 invoked by uid 0); 24 Aug 2010 03:29:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 24 Aug 2010 03:29:49 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=B9Iq8xsHAFh2m5G3nDEvyrArETulMCxwZ4IOk3L2yOug/nPwVsdyKEmWEL7jSatAxZO1LNcpMNXL4bsygRenffHlELUK2vRz9MBqH3nRhxL0aEeZbtw8Zg327RAylS8l; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnkCq-0000t3-LB for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:29:49 -0600 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:27:10 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:27:10 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100824032710.GC65931@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7qSK/uQB79J36Y4o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: Why is the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack the best? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:29:50 -0000 --7qSK/uQB79J36Y4o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perhaps they rely on the opinions of other OSes' developers -- many of whom have borrowed FreeBSD TCP/IP code to bootstrap their own network stacks. Of course, I think a number of factors contribute to this without necessarily proving it is the technical "best": * BSD Unix was first out the gate in the race to TCP/IP. * FreeBSD uses the BSD License, which makes its code easy to reuse. * Developers for the various open source BSD Unix systems tend to have a high regard for "correctness". * I haven't looked at it personally, but have heard that FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack source code is quite clean and readable -- and therefore easily reused. There may be other reasons involved. FreeBSD does tend to rate fairly well in network performance benchmarks, by the way, but those benchmarks are not typically tuned for testing the TCP/IP stack *specifically*, from what I've seen. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --7qSK/uQB79J36Y4o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxzPA4ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUB5QCgk79OzE/+4v6hkfHtm4zT4YoX aWkAoKQXAzaIUtrTPPS0ym0ZHuVzVxF5 =U5HK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7qSK/uQB79J36Y4o--