From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 08:22:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE2E16A41A for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC4613C4CE for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298B7207E; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:21:54 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: -0.2/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A445F2049; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:21:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8EC0E844B6; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:21:53 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: "william wong" References: <84a208a0801232306k6a34134aqd549a1ba2160fe41@mail.gmail.com> <86bq7bwlot.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240456q3154de92me73e846df84d587a@mail.gmail.com> <86prvrv0b1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801240711j979874apad2d17c9afdbd6e@mail.gmail.com> <86fxwn877v.fsf@ds4.des.no> <84a208a0801242158q632314dfpd370a2fee2f87390@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:21:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <84a208a0801242158q632314dfpd370a2fee2f87390@mail.gmail.com> (william wong's message of "Fri\, 25 Jan 2008 13\:58\:51 +0800") Message-ID: <86sl0m5n8e.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hacker 101 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:03 -0000 "william wong" writes: > That brings me to another ponder: why juniper and cisco are using > FreeBSD and not Linux even Linux performs better in an UP environment? Who said Linux performs better in a UP environment? UP performance is close to irrelevant these days anyway; there are still many UP machines (especially in the embedded world), but application code is increasingly dependent on multithreading, and the kind of things you have to do to your kernel to get good multithreading performance are pretty much the same things you have to do to get good SMP performance. In any case, I doubt UP or SMP performance was the biggest factor in the decision. The licensing model, the stability of the code base (between major releases) and possibly the quality of the network stack are likely to have played a larger role. This is all speculation, however; I don't work at Juniper or Cisco. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no