Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:17:24 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Larry McVoy <lm@neteng.engr.sgi.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi, lm@relay.engr.SGI.COM, iain@sbs.de, sparclinux@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: TCP/IP bandwidth bragging Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961203170725.11354A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199612030730.XAA12001@neteng.engr.sgi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Larry McVoy wrote: > paths tested by lmbench. While I agree with the load vs no load points > raised, you are missing another one: smallness is goodness, and David > is almost always optimizing by making things smaller. There are plenty > of people shoveling stuff into the kernel making it slower - David is > making it smaller & faster, let him be, it's useful. Many of us agree that small is good. > I'll try and get the focus on stuff that is closer to the FreeBSD ideal > of under load metrics in lmbench 2.0. (real soon now). You can help, > send in those specifications for what you want measured. Umm. How do you plan to similate 1200 simultaneous connections downloading 100GB of Linux and FreeBSD per day in a micro benchmark? Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.961203170725.11354A-100000>