From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 14:26:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from technokratis.com (modemcable052.174-202-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.202.174.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB8A37B401 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@technokratis.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by technokratis.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5GLQPp08694; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:26:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:26:25 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic To: Matt Dillon Cc: Rik van Riel , Matthew Hagerty , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS Message-ID: <20010616172625.A8631@technokratis.com> References: <200106162114.f5GLEEg02073@earth.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200106162114.f5GLEEg02073@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > It's certainly true that a greater degree of dynamic tuning could be > done, but all this benchmark proves (in regards to the TCP results) > is that FreeBSD puts its foot down earlier then other OS's in regards > to how much it is willing to dedicate to the network. In a real life > situation where you may be running a multi-user load or a large database, > the very last thing you want to do is shift every last bit of your > resources away from the users or the database and to the network when > an 'unexpected load' comes in (unexpected meaning something that is a > factor of 100 or 1000x what the machine normally handles). The > truth of the matter is that no amount of dynamic tuning can handle > every situation... at some point you have to manually tune the box. > FreeBSD does exactly the right thing on an untuned box by capping the > network resources. If the authors want to run the machine into the > ground with a benchmark, they have to tune the machine properly to handle > the load because FreeBSD anyway is more interested in keeping the > integrity of the machine as a whole together then it is tuning itself > to match some idiot who thinks he is gods own gift to humanity running > a benchmark. This is the best written paragraph on the issue in this entire thread. This is exactly my philosophy toward the whole thing. And I can tell you from previous dealings with companies that use FreeBSD as their main platform that this is one of the main reasons why. > -Matt Regards, -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message