From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 6 15:08:09 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA07579 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA07558 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA23798; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 16:02:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199603062302.QAA23798@rover.village.org> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD comparison - it's time, I think! Cc: Alexey Pialkin , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 06 Mar 1996 17:06:27 EST Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:02:11 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk : then things that you selected aren't the issue. But if you do network : testing with a card that has a particularly bad LINUX driver and a : very good FreeBSD driver, then the test is only valid for that one : particular card. The Linux people could do the same test with a : very good Linux driver and a buggy FreeBSD driver and get : opposite results. So what have you shown? I think that any networking tests should be averaged over at least 10 cards to make it a fair test. Don't forget to include the 100MB ethernets, since those tend to show differences in speeds of IP bettern than the 10M ethernets do. Warner