Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:25:30 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Matthew Hagerty <mhagerty@voyager.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106161712060.2056-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200106161856.f5GIujt01283@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > 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. The only thing that worries me a bit is that both FreeBSD and Linux needed to be tuned at all to run these things, even if it was just the maximum file descriptor setting. A lot of this tuning could easily be done dynamically (and is done dynamically on linux 2.4), but lots of it still has static maximums which have to be tuned by hand. Compile-time tuning for stuff which can be dynamically allocated (and freed) is IMHO a big sillyness in the OS. Yes, this report was completely useless as a benchmark, but it DID highlight a point where Linux and BSD can be improved: dynamic allocation (and freeing) of things like file descriptors and socket structures. regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0106161712060.2056-100000>