Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!zdc-e!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 11:51:14 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 73 Message-ID: <31DFEB02.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <31D2F0C6.167EB0E7@inuxs.att.com> <4rfkje$am5@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31DC8EBA.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4rlf6i$c5f@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31DEA3A3.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <Du681x.2Gy@kroete2.freinet.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:44277 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3957 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23003 Erik Corry wrote: > > John S. Dyson (toor@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: > : Linus Torvalds wrote: > : > In article <31DC8EBA.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net>, > : > John S. Dyson <toor@dyson.iquest.net> wrote: > : > > > : > >Okay, you CAN kind-of misuse it by using TCP for a single transaction, > : > >like simple HTTP transactions. > : > > : > That's NOT misusing TCP. You're showing a very biased view here. Just > : > because YOU like streaming TCP does NOT mean that TCP should necessarily > : > be streaming. There is a lot more to TCP than just TCP windows. > : > : Linus, your arrogance is showing here... making personal disparaging > : remarks. You DO NOT need to do this. > > You need to reread it more carefully, John. Linus criticised your _view_ > as being biased, he didn't criticise you. You were the one that started > criticising the person, by accusing Linus of being arrogant. I hope you > can see the difference, because it's quite critical to avoiding flame > wars on the net. > Linus is in NO position, _Erik_ to judge my reasons for my position. It is arrogant to judge my position in this way. His words were chosen in a way to attempt to discredit a very valid position, by a personal inference. It is either ignorance or arrogance to have responded in the way he did. Which one do you choose? I don't think that he is ignorant (maybe he is, in the way of coming from a "very biased view", but I didn't start that.) You are perpetuating something where I have proven my point... Various responses to my posting have started acknowleging that the no-load latency is only one (potentially small) part of the equation. I think that it is going too far to use the phrase "a very biased view" -- that is when it started getting personal. In fact, that position is discredited by other follow-up postings. This sounds like an attempt to beg the question, or "win", when my position is standing up. Secondly, the latency differences are in the noise at the kernel level, per my previous postings -- additionally the results mostly show a driver difference. At least some of the difference can be attributed to kernel compile option difference... FreeBSD defaults to the more conservative "-O" option. People who know that they need maximum speed can recompile their kernels with more aggressive (Linux-like) options. E.G. one can gain signficant speed improvements by using "-fomit-frame-pointer". We choose not to, for better kernel stack tracebacks, and customer support. The benchmark shows is that Linux's performance is good under no-load. That is typical of Linux in general, and why many people are satisified using Linux on single-user desktops. I think that Linux has a following on large systems, for many of the same reasons that NT does -- people use it on their desktops... There is, of course, a better choice for larger systems (and a generally equally good choice for small systems.) :-). People have been asking about our EXT2FS compatibility to help solve their large system problems :-). Even though the benchmark has been around for a few years or so, it doesn't make it informative under real world high-load conditions where the benchmark numbers become generally more important. So, the benchmark hasn't been challenged until now. It needs to be re-evaluated for real-world conditions... Or at least, it's limitations need to be understood, and clarified for those that would misread the implications. I have called for better, more accurate benchmarks, for networking performance. I find it interesting if a development group is threated by it. Cult followings have an evangelism that professional followings usually don't espouse. I expect emotional support of Linux (and Linus), and they obviously fills a need that many of it's users have. Sorry that I am not falling into the Linux (and GPL) party line... John