Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:10:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Steve Bernard" <sbernard@gmu.edu> Cc: <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RE: anyone read this Message-ID: <200207121910.g6CJApAc058604@apollo.backplane.com> References: <FJEELAGFCPJHAAMJKAKCOEJKCBAA.sbernard@gmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It's an old article, and also very wrong. There was a lot of hash
over it at the time and the Authors got a mouthful. They republished
after tuning FreeBSD:
http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm
In which Linux and FreeBSD wound up with very similar results.
However, the authors are obviously not very sophisticated, which
should be obvious when you read the excuses they make in the republished
article. For example, they recommend using 'async' file mounts which
nobody in their right mind should ever do (on Linux OR FreeBSD). They
also applied the many tuning suggestions blindly, without any real
understanding of what they did, then complained about it (are these
guys Linuxheads or something? They seem to think that the best OS to
release is one that is pre-tuned to return the best microbenchmark
results), and they complain that FreeBSD refuses to allocate infinite
resources to the network by default (well, Duh! Real life is not a bowl
of mailbox files!). Sigh. One of these days I will get annoyed enough
to actually load Linux onto one of my test boxes and play turnabout.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207121910.g6CJApAc058604>