Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!agate!theos.com!riscan.riscan.com!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!newspump.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!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: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:43:40 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31EE5BAC.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <31E80ACA.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> <4sadde$qsv@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31EA9FBC.41C67EA6@star-gate.com> <4sgo4l$ucf@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45707 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4112 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23945 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > [ This has no technical issues left. Don't bother following up: reply to > this by email if you must, as I will try to leave this thread - it's not > worth continuing ] > > In article <31EA9FBC.41C67EA6@star-gate.com>, > Amancio Hasty Jr. <hasty@star-gate.com> wrote: > > > >May I ask in which point do you think that Dyson is lying? 8) > > I assume the above question was rhetorical and meant to be a joke. In > case you really _are_ serious about the question, Johns posting > certainly seemed to imply that Linux is special-casing something for > better numbers on lmbench, and that (rather strongly, IMHO) implied > claim was what I reacted to. I seem not to be the only one who saw that > implication, so I'm not overly worried about being paranoid here. > Well, it is an absurd interpretation that I would make an implication that could be refuted by 100's if not 1000's of people who are looking at the source code. Sorry, but I did not imply it, and it is incorrect to use the term Lie, Linus. > > As you can see from other numbers posted to the thread, Linux is about > 3-4 times faster than FreeBSD on that particular test, so my assumption > certainly wasn't uncalled for. And FreeBSD isn't doing especially badly > on that benchmark, Linux just happens to excel at it.. > Actually, Linus, as I have said, I am not concerned about it right now, until it impacts significantly, real use of the system. When it does, we'll make the changes in that part of the system to make it faster. There are so many things to do that impact performance, I tend to believe that working on this right now would not be the best thing to do. > > Linux just seems to handle that same overhead a lot better, > and WITHOUT needing to special case anything at all. > Never argued that Linux didn't handle that benchmark well. The benchmarks of course, are not in themselves a very accurate measure of quality. That is why I am not really worried about it. I feel bad that you chose to condemn me for what you thought was undue criticism. I have been continually looking for some information that backs up claims that you have made (on other threads.) I am willing to post or mail them to you for clarification. (If anyone else would like a copy of the claim ,just ask.) I have had no other agendas :-(. John