From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jul 24 10:55:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA03770 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bbs.mpcs.com (root@bbs.mpcs.com [204.215.226.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA03759 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from news1.mpcs.com (news1.mpcs.com [204.215.226.8]) by bbs.mpcs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/MPCS) with ESMTP id NAA12787 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:08:41 -0400 Received: (from news@localhost) by news1.mpcs.com (8.7.3/8.7.3/MPCS) id NAA20060; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:08:34 -0400 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Path: hgoldste From: hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) Newsgroups: muc.lists.freebsd.questions Subject: Re: The diffrence between Linux and FreeBSD Date: 24 Jul 1996 17:08:29 GMT Organization: disorganization Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <31F47046.31AF@esi.co.il> Reply-To: hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com NNTP-Posting-Host: bbs.mpcs.com X-Newsreader: slrn (0.8.5) Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 23 Jul 1996 23:07:25 +0200, Stephen Hovey wrote: : Linux will hang if you use an ne2000, freebsd will not : freebsd has a really great disk caching subsystem so if your application : does alot of disk IO it behaves better with more thruput. There are many excellent reasons to select FreeBSD over Linux, but I'm afraid ne2000 hangs are not one of them. My comment is based on running a couple of non-hanging terabytes through ne2ks on 1.1.x and 1.2.x kernels in recent years, and recently a few dozen gigabytes in my office between FreeBSD 2.1R and STABLE and 1.2.13s. -- Howard Goldstein