From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 11:56:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCD437B401 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:56:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.3/8.11.2) id f5GIujt01283; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200106161856.f5GIujt01283@earth.backplane.com> To: Matthew Hagerty Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010616142444.03952e48@pop.voyager.net> 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 : :Greetings, : :Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running hard core :network apps. The results are kind of disturbing, with FreeBSD (4.2) :coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k, and Solaris (Intel). This is old. The guys running the tests blew it in so many ways that you might as well have just rolled some dice. There's a slashdot article on it too, and quite a few of the reader comments on these bozos are correct. I especially like comment #41. Don't worry, FreeBSD stacks up just fine in real environments. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message