Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:58 -0700 From: Steve Dong <sdong@huawei.com> To: 'Adrian Chadd' <adrian@freebsd.org>, 'Hongtao Yin' <htyin@huawei.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance Message-ID: <000d01ca4dfa$081c36f0$3322c10a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <d763ac660910151355k5fa593eu88d195dde09192be@mail.gmail.com> References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> <d763ac660910151355k5fa593eu88d195dde09192be@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There are two gettimeofday calls, one at the beginning of the test and the other at the end. netperf-2.4.4 is used. I believe gettimeofday is a vsyscall in linux, but a real system call in freebsd. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Chadd Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:55 PM To: Hongtao Yin Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance 2009/10/15 Hongtao Yin <htyin@huawei.com>: > Hi, > > > > I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test > tools Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC. Did you compare syscalls made and time taken? For example, do either/both of them do a lot of gettimeofday() calls? FreeBSD and Linux have (had?) different behaviours and performance with those. I'd suggest digging a bit deeper? :) adrian _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000d01ca4dfa$081c36f0$3322c10a>