From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 13 20:43:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA12497 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caipfs.rutgers.edu (root@caipfs.rutgers.edu [128.6.91.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA12492 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:43:22 -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 XAA24377; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by jenolan.caipgeneral (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06041; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:41:39 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:41:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199704140341.XAA06041@jenolan.caipgeneral> From: "David S. Miller" To: jbryant@tfs.net CC: dennis@etinc.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199704140313.WAA07958@argus> (message from Jim Bryant on Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:13:31 -0500 (CDT)) Subject: Re: Commercial vendors registry Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk From: Jim Bryant Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:13:31 -0500 (CDT) Case in point... Lin[s]ux... [ ... ] bad networking, even worse VM... Care to back these claims up with factual information? I've studied both FreeBSD's and Linux's vm/net subsystems at great length, and I would love to know what I might have overlooked during my studies. ---------------------------------------------//// 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 /_____________/ / // /_/ ><