Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iol!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk (Brian Somers) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Followup-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 16 Jul 1996 11:20:38 +0100 Organization: Coverform Ltd. Lines: 39 Message-ID: <4sfqdm$bo@anorak.coverform.lan> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.eng.sun.com> <4pf7f9$bsf@white.twinsun.com> <4rql4p$39f@innocence.interface-business.de> <4rrimn$dro@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E16DB5.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4rtvpf$7e5@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E73BCA.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <4s7jsd$blf@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E7B8A5.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8rtp$jsh@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E9B079.7A47@cet.co.jp> <31E9EEAA.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.coverform.lan X-NNTP-Posting-Host: awfulhak.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45504 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23801 John S. Dyson (toor@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: : Since it is obvious that FreeBSD and Linux under light load : appear to run with roughly the same performance (plus or : minus some design tradeoffs), I suggest that Linus join : the FreeBSD team to continue on the long lived BSD development : effort. This will allow us to start with our already : very good light AND heavy load performance and improve : it further (there is alot more scalability work yet to : do), and of course activate some of our more esoteric : features. Wouldn't it be a much more efficient use : of resources? Yeah, but we wouldn't get to read fun threads like this one :-) Seriously, appart from the "mine is better than yours" arguments, the competition has to do both sides a lot of good - despite the invent-the-wheel-twice overhead. So, who's gonna post the "under-load" figures ? I havn't got Linux running (at the moment), so I can't. So far, Larry McVoy wrote: >Host OS Mhz Null Null Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc > Syscall Process Process Process lat ctxsw ctxsw >--------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------ >i586.1 FreeBSD 2.1-S 133 9 3K 12K 20K 105 24 28 >i586.120 Linux 1.3.28 120 2 1K 5K 16K 69 10 13 >i586.166 FreeBSD 2.2-c 166 500uses 1.2K 7K -- -- -- and Peter Mutsaers wrote: >Host OS Mhz Null Null Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc > Syscall Process Process Process lat ctxsw ctxsw >--------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------ >plm Linux 1.3.99 90 4 2.1K 11.5K 53K 404 14 19 >plm.xs4al FreeBSD 2.2-C 90 15 2.9K 13.6K 23K 102 37 45 -- Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....