Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:38:32 -0800 From: "Jonathan Graehl" <jonathan@graehl.org> To: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> Cc: "Freebsd-Net" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance Message-ID: <NCBBLOALCKKINBNNEDDLGEAMDNAA.jonathan@graehl.org> In-Reply-To: <3ABAEC0A.994C6D2C@imimic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, we do. In fact, the difference between FreeBSD and Linux is > greater > than 2x. On equivalent processors, we demonstrated 1900 polygraph > req/sec > on FreeBSD 4.2 and 720 polygraph req/sec on a 2.2.14 Linux kernel. It's > also worth mentioning that the response time for FreeBSD at 1900 req/sec > was faster than Linux at 720 req/sec. > > There are other advantages to FreeBSD, but kqueue is definitely > at the top of the list. > > Alan What would it take to get Linus to give the nod to an implementation conforming to the kqueue API? I remember him saying that he only wanted it to work for file descriptors, and to only allow one kqueue per process - neither of which I agree with. The abstraction penalty for the capability of multiple filter types and kqueue-as-selectable-fd is as minimal as a table lookup and a pointer indirection. If the kqueue API is overengineered, well, then, so is the Berkeley Sockets API. -- Jonathan Graehl http://jonathan.graehl.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NCBBLOALCKKINBNNEDDLGEAMDNAA.jonathan>