Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.uoregon.edu!symiserver2.symantec.com!usenet From: tedm@agora.rdrop.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs freeBSD Date: 14 Sep 1996 16:47:53 GMT Organization: Symantec Corporation Lines: 19 Message-ID: <51enjp$t3q@symiserver2.symantec.com> References: <5142pc$94o@news.swan.ac.uk> <517gha$t6u@BLaCKSMITH.com> Reply-To: tedm@agora.rdrop.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.6.34.1 X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.2.5 In <517gha$t6u@BLaCKSMITH.com>, leo@BLaCKSMITH.com (Leo Turetsky) writes: >Feisal Mohammed writes >Basically, I want to know which OS (Linux or FreeBSD) will run NFS better. >Better is defined as more reliably, faster, and more efficiently (less CPU My testing has indicated that NFS in particular is very sensitive to the kind of network adapter card is in the machine. For example, on a recent test that I did on copying a 12MB file over NFS the worst time was 84 seconds on a 3com 3C509 "original" card, while the best time was 70 seconds on a Cnet NE2000 clone card. FTP tests with the same cards indicated almost identical transfer times of around 30 seconds. My suspicions are that depending on the network card adapter you use in your machine that you could get "the best NFS" performance out of either of the two operating systems. My suggestions are that you pick the operating system for other reasons than what someone says is the best one, and then get yourself a selection of different manufacturers network cards and a packet sniffer and run some tests.