From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Feb 16 11:25: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from builder.freebsd.org (builder.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495CA37B555 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F27D132E9 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:24:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01126; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:24:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA7waqjc; Wed Feb 16 12:24:46 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA17991; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:24:54 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200002161924.MAA17991@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Windows 2000 isn't that smart, but everything else is To: cjclark@home.com Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:24:54 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), jnickelsen@acm.org (Juergen Nickelsen), kris@hiwaay.net (Kris Kirby), chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20000216141114.B48524@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> from "Crist J. Clark" at Feb 16, 2000 02:11:14 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > > I saw this a lot from a FreeBSD box (3.4-RELEASE) that was connected > > > > to the same Ethernet segment with two NICs (in different logical > > > > networks). It really got on my nerves, and Windows 2000 was not > > > > involved. > > > > > > Shouldn't put two NICs from one host on one physical LAN. Hurts > > > network performance. I have yet to hear a good reason to do it. > > > > Because when Windows NT did it on a 4 processor box with the > > interrupt processing for each NIC bound to a different processor > > (e.g. non-symmetric multiprocessing), they blew the doors off > > of Linux when it came to file server performance? > > What was the network configuation? The performance was processor-NIC > limted rather than by network bandwidth? This was the test at Ziff-Davis labs following the Linux uproar about the other testing lab being paid by Microsoft. FreeBSD fared badly, as well, but it was not reported in the press. The network configuration, I believe, was 10/100 cards running at 100. The performance was apparently limited by interprocessor bus contention, not bandwidth, since we are talking about the ability to support N clients for a request/response based file sharing protocol. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message