Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:46:29 +0200 From: "Ritz, Bruno" <bruno_ritz@gmx.ch> To: <FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: possible millisecond - microsecond confusion Message-ID: <GNENKHPCNMLFKGMPLJONCEMBCCAA.bruno_ritz@gmx.ch> In-Reply-To: <20020825125050.A6559@sumuk.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Forget what I have said (stupid me). What is written is very correct. I just saw that milli and microseconds are used in the same sentence. But I did not read it carefully enough. It takes 2.7 microseconds per rule (there are 1000) which, when a packet has to pass through all rules, makes 2.7 microseconds * 1000 = 2.7 millisecnds per packet. So I was wrong. Sorry for this... > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Heinen [mailto:martin@sumuk.de] > Sent: Sunday, 2002-August-25 12:51 > To: Ritz, Bruno > Cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: possible millisecond - microsecond confusion > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 12:52:31AM +0200, Ritz, Bruno wrote: > > > it's nothing dramatically but i think there is a little mistake in the freebsd 4.6.2 handbook. at bottom of page 226 > and on top of > > page 227 (10.7.7 IPFW Overhead and Optimization) where the times packet processing times are written, the times are > specified once > > as milliseconds (ms) another time as microseconds. > > > > >>The per-packet processing overhead in the former case was approximately 2.703ms/packet, or roughly 2.7 > > microseconds per rule<< > > Indeed, it seems strange to use ms and microseconds in the same > sentence. How about the attached patch, which changes microseconds > to µs? > > Martin > > -- > Marxpitn > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?GNENKHPCNMLFKGMPLJONCEMBCCAA.bruno_ritz>