From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 17 12:56:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from a.mx.everquick.net (a.mx.everquick.net [216.89.137.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187A737B405 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:55:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net) Received: from localhost (eddy@localhost) by a.mx.everquick.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5HJtg515196; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:55:42 GMT X-EverQuick-No-Abuse: Report any e-mail abuse to Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:55:42 +0000 (GMT) From: "E.B. Dreger" To: "Albert D. Cahalan" Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS In-Reply-To: <200106162057.f5GKv4X11560@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT) > From: Albert D. Cahalan > You mean they should just optimize for FreeBSD, or should they also > use completion ports on Win2K, /dev/poll on Solaris, and RT signals > on Linux? What is wrong with using the portable API on every OS? If you want an all-out performance test, use what's available. > is fine to use fancy FreeBSD features. Otherwise no, it isn't OK. > FreeBSD shouldn't need nonportable hacks to keep up with Win2K > and Linux. Like mounting the volume async? :-P What size swap partition did they use? How hard is it to compile a custom kernel? What optimizations did they use on the respective compilers? > You're sounding like a Microsoftie, demanding that code be written (Troll alert) > to the latest OS-specific API to get decent performance. The "decent" performance issue has been addressed. For all-out performance, accept filters and kqueues are not that new. > > Not to mention that anyone using a kernel "out of the > > box" needs to be larted. > > If you run Google or Yahoo, sure. If the admin is really the guy > hired to make web pages selling potted plants, no way. And I suppose that routers must also coddle the "admin" using FP, because it's too hard to filter bogons or configure netmasks by hand? BGP should be "plug and play", eh? A certain amount of manual work is "too much" -- don't get me wrong. But there's a point where, if you want to be a "network admin", you simply must know WTF you are doing. If an "admin" is too dumb to at least start tuning a system, will they know enough to asymmetrically encrypt sensitive info before storing it in a database? If not, I'm less than excited about buying from them. Anybody who needs a wizard, singing mouse, or dancing teddy bear to bind an IP address to a NIC scares me. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to , or you are likely to be blocked. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message