From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 18:04:48 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECCA1065697 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rsmith@xs4all.nl) Received: from smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1516E8FC08 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slackbox.erewhon.net (slackbox.xs4all.nl [213.84.242.160]) by smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7NI4kV8061090; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:04:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rsmith@xs4all.nl) Received: by slackbox.erewhon.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 374F1BABA; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:04:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:04:46 +0200 From: Roland Smith To: Ed Flecko Message-ID: <20100823180446.GA36043@slackbox.erewhon.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 X-GPG-Key: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/pubkey.txt X-GPG-Notice: If this message is not signed, don't assume I sent it! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack the best? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:04:48 -0000 --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:20:35AM -0700, Ed Flecko wrote: > One of the common discussions of different OSes are their own > implementations of the TCP/IP stack. Most of the authors seem to agree > that while different OSes have their pros and cons, most seem to agree > that in terms of pure, network performance, no OS is better that > FreeBSD! >=20 > O.K., now you've got my curiosity... >=20 > 1.) Do you agree? What is the definition of best? I've saturated a 100 Mbps network link betw= een two FreeBSD machines using nc(1) without the CPU's breaking a sweat. So it's definitely Good Enough wrt speed. And I don't see many dropped packets or errors. However it does not follow that there aren't other operating systems capable of the same. And it depends to a significant degree on the network hardware. Intel and 3= com cards tend to work much better than e.g. Realtek. And a dodgy cable will ru= in your day connection wise. Roland --=20 R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxyuD4ACgkQEnfvsMMhpyVKMgCdEmHr3Y9rKUp6IM4YPL1gaSff Ed0AoJfMQ45j2IDMRpzKBZCI0VP/6Uy3 =T6w3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--