Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!newshost.convex.com!news.onramp.net!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: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:14:55 -0500
Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <31E7BD6F.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net>
References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <31E106AF.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4rvmtf$ven@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31E3D9E2.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s5bl2$qpg@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31E664EB.167EB0E7@inuxs.att.com> <4s67sk$oa9@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E6B8AB.3E6C@indy.celebration.net> <4s7j2r$blf@fido.asd.sgi.com>
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:45083 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4020 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23451
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> : So have you demonstrated otherwise? You are alluding to the issue
> : that I am concerned about. It is that the no-load latency figures
> : don't consider the potential performance hit of even reasonably large
> : number connections. Also, the lat_tcp benchmark hasn't shown any kind
> : of real world performance that I see that most of the users of FreeBSD
> : are interested in.
>
> Whine, whine, whine. I'm getting pretty sick of it. You use my tools,
> complaining all the way, and offer nothing in return. If you want something
> better, you're welcome to write it. Otherwise, you're just a whiner.
>
I have written benchmarks better than yours for my purposes. In fact
they measure more real world numbers. Yours are good for initial
no-scaled checks. I don't release them, but suffice it to say, I am
happy with the results. Remember, it is the Linux crowd that initially
released the bogus conclusions from incomplete results (given YOUR benchmarks).
If all that was claimed was: Linux's ZERO LOAD LATENCY appears to be faster
than *BSD now. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM. That statement would appear
have great integrity considering THE FACT that the only measurement results
that were quoted were ZERO LOAD LATENCY...
>
> : > : You ARE making progress.
> : >
> : > You're failing the "oh, please don't be insulting" test again John.
> : >
> : Why is it insulting? I feel that the issue of scalability is starting
> : to be understood and acknowleged.
>
> Think about who you are talking about. Here's a guy that has written
> much of a generic kernel (*nobody* in the BSD camp can come close to
> saying the same), a guy that is doing a hell of job of outperforming your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is where questionable integrity comes in,
extending incomplete results into a general conclusion. The conclusions
would have much more integrity if the benchmarks demonstrated them. The
benchmarks that have been presented so far DO NOT. You sound very
emotional in the support of Linux. Yes, Linus should be happy that
Linux APPEARS to be catching up in certain areas. That is ALL that can be
concluded at this point.
> stuff, and you sit there and say "I feel that the issue of scalability is
> starting to be understood and acknowleged." Well thanks for your input.
Yep, Linus got up to three(3) connections :-). Psst, try 1000-3000
connections with different IP/PORT addresses, then it all starts getting
very very interesting :-).
> I'm sure glad we have you here to tell me that scaling is important.
> I'll bet Linus is learning a lot from your postings, keep up the good
> work.
>
Pompus, aren't we? :-). Does that make me a BLASPHEMER? He has NOT shown
competency in benchmarking. I'll bet you that there are qualities about
me that blow YOU AND LINUS away, but that does not make me better in the
areas that I am not expert. Additionally, have you been open about
the attempted recruitment of me onto Linux? (Y'know the VM system needs
work?)
> : I think that it is best to put this discussion aside until some
> : benchmarks are run under controlled circumstances, by unbiased
> : parties, and with benchmarks that actually measure something that
> : people generally need.
>
> I may be biased in which operating system that I want to run, I'll cop
> to that. But if you are accusing me of publishing fudged numbers in any
> way, shape, or form, then you're questioning my professional integrity
> and I take that seriously enough that you'll end up in court.
>
There is little or no integrity (it could be competency, but I won't
belabor that point) in someone who would extend a single (or
even a few) benchmark figures into a general conclusion. If you call
that me calling you names, then you have come to the conclusion yourself
There is certainly adequate information that is available publically that
shows your Linux bias anyway. At least I am publically honest about having
a FreeBSD bias.
John