From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Jul 8 9:41:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872BE14E1B for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id JAA40947; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199907081641.JAA40947@apollo.backplane.com> To: Cosmic 665 Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP comparisons References: <19990708162724.16604.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org :NO!!!!! FreeBSD is ahead... maybe behind a little... either way, we kick :linux's A$$ : :p.s. I gave a copy of 3.0 to a friend of mine to compare between linux & :FreeBSD on SMP and maybe even NT. I'll be hearing back from him on thouse :results. : :-cosmic-665 Linux beats our arses on SMP performance, I'm afraid. They've been able to move the tcp stack outside of the big giant lock and have also moved a significant portion of the data copying stuff outside of the big giant lock. And, on top of that, we need to make significant changes to the way our buffer cache works to even approach linux's I/O performance under SMP. I want to move us more towards a UVM model for I/O - i.e. going through the VM subsystem to read and write data rather then VFS subsystem and the notifying the VFS system after the fact for writes. Unfortunately, I doubt that much progress will be made in the current environment. FreeBSD still kicks ass in the reliability department, despite the recent problems with INN and mmap(), and FreeBSD still kicks ass if a system ever has to start paging. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message