From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Feb 10 08:04:16 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id IAA22946 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:04:16 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA22935 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:04:13 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA11184; Fri, 10 Feb 95 08:55:58 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9502101555.AA11184@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: enet throughput To: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 8:55:57 MST Cc: jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: <199502101027.LAA25688@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Christoph Kukulies" at Feb 10, 95 11:27:26 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > John Hay -- jhay@mikom.csir.co.za > > > > > > freebsd enet performance doesn't look too good down here. > > > from freebsd -> irix i see 700 kbytes/sec. This is using 3c509s, isa bus, > > > p90 systems, the 12/22/94 snap. > > > > > > from freebsd -> freebsd i see 200 kbytes/second. Linux on similar boxes, > > > same cards, sees 980 according to a friend. > ^^^ > I believe linux figures are cheating because the linux fs cache. > I wonder how linux looks when you transfer a really large file (>> physical > memory). Of course you really meant to say "asynchronus writes in violation of the NFS specification" instead of "fs cache", since BSD has an equivalent or better VM caching mechanism. Yes, async writes are something which ought to be allowable, but not on by default because of the unreliability and server reset intolerance they cause. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.