From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May 16 07:36:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA01121
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 16 May 1997 07:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA01116
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 May 1997 07:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dialup-usr11.etinc.com (dialup-usr11.etinc.com [204.141.95.132]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA05740 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 May 1997 10:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970516102938.00685888@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:29:41 -0400
To: hackers@freebsd.org
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 03:32 AM 5/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
>   From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
>   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.

yes...bzero is a major latency issue :-)

db