From owner-freebsd-isp  Sun Feb  6 20:24: 2 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from internal.mail.demon.net (internal.mail.demon.net [193.195.224.3])
	by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9880D3EE2
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Feb 2000 20:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fanf.eng.demon.net (fanf.eng.demon.net [195.11.55.89])
	by internal.mail.demon.net with ESMTP id EAA28110;
	Mon, 7 Feb 2000 04:24:32 GMT
Received: from fanf by fanf.eng.demon.net with local (Exim 3.12 #3)
	id 12Hfix-0009Rx-00; Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:24:31 +0000
To: Stanley.Hopcroft@IPAustralia.Gov.AU
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD and MS Windows performance
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002071257340.6891-100000@stan>
Message-Id: <E12Hfix-0009Rx-00@fanf.eng.demon.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:24:31 +0000
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Stanley Hopcroft <Stanley.Hopcroft@IPAustralia.Gov.AU> wrote:
>
>He also claims (in the May article that talks about network
>performance. I don't know when the VM article was published other
>sometime last year) that 
>
>. because the Linux threads do not do asynchronous IO they are less
>efficient than NTs threads.

Linux's pthreads implementation does do async IO.

>. because the Linux kernel does not provide re entrant read() and write
>calls, that NT - which does - outperforms it.

Linux's glibc has support for the POSIX aio_*() calls.

>. Linux lacks a "sendfile" system call to avoid reading something
>before sending it over a TCP connection, and therefore lags Linux which
>does.

Linux does have sendfile().

Tony.
-- 
               **                              **               
***   ***   ***  **** ***   *******   ***   ***  **** ***   ****
   ***   ***         *   ***       ***   ***         *   ***    


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