Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!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.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:59:59 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 28 Message-ID: <31E80E4F.2781E494@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <x7687w1dsr.fsf@oberon.di.fc.ul.pt> <4s220u$nmq@symiserver2.symantec.com> <31E53C2B.41C67EA6@inuxs.att.com> <4s6k8o$4o0@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> <31E6FD92.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8cuq$ljd@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <31E7C0DD.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8tcn$jsh@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:45122 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23497 Larry McVoy wrote: > > : Yes I am disputing the fact, the fact is that he had said that the > : TCP latency is faster. Bzzt, that is the wrong conclusion. The > : TCP latency under NO LOAD is faster. Most people don't understand > : the difference, but one claim is accurate, and the other is NOT. > > Nobody said that Linux' TCP latency under load is faster, in fact, I pointed > out that it degrades to about the same as FreeBSD under load. I said, and > the benchmark said, that a ping pong test using TCP was faster under Linux > than on FreeBSD. You turned it into this general statement about TCP > latency under all conditions. That's your problem. > EEEK!!! If I said that FreeBSD is faster than Linux, you would say: "In what area" wouldn't you? You are saying "TCP latency" is faster. I am saying that you are making a sweeping generalization given the benchmark that you cite. You are coming closer to my position. It is okay if you don't admit it. Now, the benchmark-meister can go and work out something that gives us numbers that more completely demonstrates the more important loaded latency figures? AGAIN, this is not an argument of which is faster, it is more an argument that the conclusions DO NOT follow from the benchmarks that are run! Pheeww!!! John