From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 24 14: 1:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB8C37B424 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:01:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Bsdguru@aol.com) Received: from Bsdguru@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id x.18.d428b5e (25309); Thu, 24 May 2001 17:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Bsdguru@aol.com Message-ID: <18.d428b5e.283ed07c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:00:44 EDT Subject: Re: technical comparison To: jandrese@mitre.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message dated 05/23/2001 5:04:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jandrese@mitre.org writes: > > > > Tell them to fire 20K packets/second at the linux box and watch it crumble. > > > Linux has lots of little kludges to make it appear faster on some > benchmarks, > > but from a networking standpoint it cant handle significant network loads. > > > Are you sure this is still true? The 2.4.x series kernel was supposed to > have significant networking improvements over the previous kernels. I dont know, but I doubt it. the problem isnt the networking preformance, its the inability of the memory system and the ethernet drivers to handle overloads properly. They are modeled in a way that fails in practice. Bryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message