From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 11:59:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo.feral.com [192.67.166.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1A737B403 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:59:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from wonky.feral.com (wonky.feral.com [192.67.166.7]) by beppo.feral.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f5GIx4g54410 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:59:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: To: Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS In-Reply-To: <200106161856.f5GIujt01283@earth.backplane.com> Message-ID: <20010616115849.O4483-100000@wonky.feral.com> 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 On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > > : > :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. Disagree wrt NFS services. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message