Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:14:00 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org, ann kok <annkok2001@yahoo.com>, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Subject: Re: freebsd router Message-ID: <20060115011400.GM83922@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060111134814.19609.qmail@web33307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060111133229.GF98918@over-yonder.net> <20060111134814.19609.qmail@web33307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 05:48:14AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: D> I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for D> thinking so. There is little argument that D> FreeBSD 4.x is perhaps the fastest Uniprocessor D> O/S ever created for networking. SMP will likely D> never be able to match it. It certainly can't D> now, in the current state of development. D> D> Routing is fastest when implemented as a single D> process task. Once you start chopping up D> (threading) the path you slow it down. While it D> could be possible to have a faster routing D> subsystem on a custom-designed MP O/S, its not D> practical to build a general purpose O/S in such D> a way. D> D> So freebsd 4.x it is. Freebsd 4.x can route 25% D> more traffic than its 5.x counterpart on the same D> hardware. 5.x SMP is actually worse (as it drops D> more packets at high traffic levels, and FreeBSD D> 4.x never drops packets until its overrun). Do you have more exact information? I mean: - Description of the test setup. - How packet stream was generated? - How success/loss was measured? - What hardware was used: CPU, mobo, NICs. - What settings were non-default. - And finally exact numbers - pps success/loss. And don't waste your time comparing 5.x and 4.x. Please compare 4.x and 6.0. The 5.x is a previous step. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060115011400.GM83922>