From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Apr 5 13:57:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.thuntek.net (srv1.thuntek.net [206.206.98.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845EC14E06 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:57:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwilde1@thuntek.net) Received: from thuntek.net (abq-051.thuntek.net [207.66.52.51]) by srv1.thuntek.net (8.9.1/8.6.12TNT1.0) with ESMTP id OAA26309; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:55:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <370922DB.6D41D365@thuntek.net> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 14:53:47 -0600 From: Donald Wilde X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: nicole@nmhtech.com, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Very Interesting user of FreeBSD References: <199904052038.PAA11647@free.pcs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > In article you write: > > > > > > I found an interesting reference that I want to look deeper into but at > >http://bakeoff.ircache.net/bakeoff-01/ ( A Caching Server bakeoff) > > They have a nice link at the bottom for FreeBSD. > > > > Now what is most suprizing to me is at > >http://bakeoff.ircache.net/bakeoff-01/polyteam-pics/ (warning LARGE) > >3rd picture up from the bottom has a caption that reads "Glenn and Alex loading > >FreeBSD on the Novell cluster." > > Hah. > > Yes, both CAIDA and NLANR are using FreeBSD extensively, it's their > platform of choice for developing polygraph (the web proxy benchmark). > You might know them better as developers of the Squid proxy. > > The bakeoff used approximately 80 machines as the "test harness" for > various vendor's proxies, and all 80 machines were running FreeBSD. > > > So, Novell is using FreeBSD for their Caching Solution....?? > > No - "Novell powered by Dell" is a custom Novell system (which appears > to beat everything else at this particular bakeoff). But then again, the > solution is not a general purpose OS, (as far as I can tell), so that's > to be expected. > > Peregrine, on the other hand, _is_ running on a 3.1 box (with my > tweaks) and performs almost on a par with the Novell solution on > the same hardware. Of course, we're running into a CPU bottleneck, > and they're running into a network bottleneck, so it's not exactly > a fair comparison. > > I was talking to the Polyteam at the conference, and what they would > primarily like is for my changes to be folded into FBSD (which I should > submit for review sometime soon). Jonathan, would you like to work with one of DaemonNews' article-writers? We could trade free promo for Peregrine for coverage of your opinions of FreeBSD... :-) Ditto the Polygraph people. You both are the kind of serious FreeBSD developers we (DN and WC) want to showcase in our efforts to get more people to develop for/on FreeBSD. -- Don Wilde "Bringing the Internet to everyone!" Wilde Media 1380 Rio Rancho Blvd. SE #117 voice: 505-771-0709 Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87124 e-mail: dwilde1@thuntek.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message