From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 16 00:34:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA14244 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 16 May 1997 00:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caipfs.rutgers.edu (root@caipfs.rutgers.edu [128.6.155.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA14235 for ; Fri, 16 May 1997 00:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jenolan.caipgeneral (jenolan.rutgers.edu [128.6.111.5]) by caipfs.rutgers.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA10221; Fri, 16 May 1997 03:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by jenolan.caipgeneral (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA00547; Fri, 16 May 1997 03:32:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 03:32:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199705160732.DAA00547@jenolan.caipgeneral> From: "David S. Miller" To: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE CC: hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199705160648.IAA04428@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Christoph Kukulies on Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:13 +0200 (MEST)) Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk From: Christoph Kukulies Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:13 +0200 (MEST) Someone told me some time ago when I was seeking for similar figures (Garret ?) that FreeBSD can saturate 10/100 Mbit with appropriate CPU power. The only interesting question would be CPU utilization during transfer compared to other L-word OSs. I'd be more interested in seeing FreeBSD get low latencies, but as long as you guys are bzero()'ing a structure on the stack of tcp_input() for every packet that arrives just for T/TCP's sake, it isn't going to happen. ---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><