From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Nov 1 10:35:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01000 for hardware-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:35:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware) Received: from silver.sms.fi (silver.sms.fi [194.111.122.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA00990 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:35:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pete@silver.sms.fi) Received: (from pete@localhost) by silver.sms.fi (8.8.7/8.7.3) id UAA00692; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:33:28 +0200 (EET) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:33:28 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: <199711011833.UAA00692@silver.sms.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Petri Helenius To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" Cc: Mike Tancsa , dg@root.com, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fxp0 and full duplex In-Reply-To: <199711010835.AAA08688@MindBender.serv.net> References: <199711010803.KAA14082@silver.sms.fi> <199711010835.AAA08688@MindBender.serv.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15p7 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com writes: > > >With OS's with good IP stacks, like FreeBSD and some of the other > >unixen, you usually hit the second packet in a window coming in with > >first reply packet. That accounts for about 1% collisions even with > >fairly low speeds. Downgrading to any M$ OS would "fix" the problem. > > Do you know, for a fact, that MS IP stacks (from Win95 thru NT Server) > are significantly less efficient than the BSD variety? Or are you > just slamming MS for the hell of it? > While FreeBSD with P166 can easily fill a 100Mbps pipe, same hardware running NT or 95 comes up to around 30-45Mbps. There are multiple independent studies available on the web to confirm this story, with FreeBSD, Solaris x86, etc... Pete