Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:38:02 -0800 (PST) From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> To: dennis@etinc.com Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? Message-ID: <199611192238.OAA16243@chimp.jnx.com> In-Reply-To: <199611191516.KAA06950@etinc.com> (dennis@etinc.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think that tony has been working on scarce resouce machines for too long. Well, that's certainly true. However, PC's don't have significantly more resources, so... You buy time with buffer space, and buffer space in a freebsd enviroment is rather abundant. You've got hardware buffering, and OS buffering, all which need to compensate for the time needed to service the interrupts. Sorry, this just false. Buffering allows you to trade rate mismatches for latency. Unfortunately, you have a hard latency limitation. So adding 4GBytes of buffering to your FreeBSD box does NOT make the routing protocol more stable. At T1 there is no issue, because you can buffer several full timeouts worth of data. Yes, but so what? If you queue up my protocol packets then either I can't get at them for several seconds. Alternately, if this is output buffering and my protocol packets don't get out of the box for several seconds, I'm equally toast. I think building a freebsd box with 1 100Mbs ethernet and 1very high speed interface is fairly easy...because you can control the process flow. I agree with the goal and the conclusion. I still don't believe that you've got enough process level control that you can also make the box a Web server, say and not endanger the protocols. Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611192238.OAA16243>