From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 13:57:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu (saturn.cs.uml.edu [129.63.8.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25DB37B403 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:57:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from acahalan@saturn.cs.uml.edu) Received: (from acahalan@localhost) by saturn.cs.uml.edu (8.11.0/8.11.2) id f5GKv4X11560; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106162057.f5GKv4X11560@saturn.cs.uml.edu> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS 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 E.B. Dreger writes: > If the programmers who wrote that software used poll() on FreeBSD 4.2, > then I'd say that they need to RTFM and learn about kernel queues and > accept filters. You mean they should just optimize for FreeBSD, or should they also use completion ports on Win2K, /dev/poll on Solaris, and RT signals on Linux? What is wrong with using the portable API on every OS? In an open competition where each team writes the code, sure, it is fine to use fancy FreeBSD features. Otherwise no, it isn't OK. FreeBSD shouldn't need nonportable hacks to keep up with Win2K and Linux. You're sounding like a Microsoftie, demanding that code be written to the latest OS-specific API to get decent performance. > Not to mention that anyone using a kernel "out of the > box" needs to be larted. If you run Google or Yahoo, sure. If the admin is really the guy hired to make web pages selling potted plants, no way. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message