From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Fri May 22 17:13:48 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23884
          for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA23839
          for <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from root@implode.root.com)
Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05964;
	Fri, 22 May 1998 17:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199805230013.RAA05964@implode.root.com>
To: Brandon Huey <bh@transbay.net>
cc: Nicole <freelist@webweaver.net>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Gigabit FreeBSD 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 May 1998 17:14:05 PDT."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980522170900.28022A-100000@synergy.transbay.net> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:13:14 -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>i thought ttcp is a memory-to-memory throughput benchmark?
>doesn't that make it somewhat less appropriate for real-world simulations?

   It depends on what you want to measure. If you want to isolate and
measure just the networking code performance, then ttcp is the perfect
choice. If you want to test filesystem performance, than FTP is better.

-DG

David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message