Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12394 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3226 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!sundance!cmetz From: cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Linux networking ??? Date: 16 Aug 1994 12:24:32 GMT Organization: Information Technology Division, Naval Research Laboratory Lines: 19 Message-ID: <32qb60$ere@ra.nrl.navy.mil> References: <RSANDERS.94Aug9003813@hrothgar.mindspring.com> <32ll52$n7d@quagga.ru.ac.za> <1994Aug15.034939.20997@cs.brown.edu> <32ol5s$ck@euterpe.owl.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil In article <32ol5s$ck@euterpe.owl.de>, Martin Husemann <martin@euterpe.owl.de> wrote: In <1994Aug15.034939.20997@cs.brown.edu> mhw@cs.brown.edu (Mark Weaver) writes: >>On Linux, while doing the same thing, there is hardly any disk >>activity at all. >Linux uses more (upto nearly all available phys.) memory for disk cache buffer >NetBSD restricts this to a fraction of physical memory. >There are pro's and cons' for both strategies, but you would usualy prefer >the Linux way on personal workstations with only one concurrent user - you! I think, in general, a properly done merged VM/buffercache scenario like Linux uses is the way to go. This what FreeBSD is doing, isn't it? The old circa-Net/2 way of doing it, to have a fixed size buffercache, is most frequently not the best way to go, though it's certainly easier to implement and debug.