Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!nsw1.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-was.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.apfel.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.be.com!news1.crl.com!nexp.crl.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux. TCP and NFS performance? Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:16:51 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 22 Message-ID: <33396813.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> References: <3338c02c.178408318@netnews.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.1-RELEASE i386) To: Tim White <osas@worldnet.att.net> Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:37932 Tim White wrote: > quite that of FreeBSD. Course this was in a Linux vs FreeBSD > thread...so without starting a flame war here can anyone throw > real numbers at me on network performance. I'm already sold on > FreeBSD as to stabilty. Don't trust anyone else's "real numbers" from either camp. The only way to know for sure, and to be convincing to those who actually know what they're doing rather than those who believe everything they read in PC Week, is to run your own tests on your own hardware given your own applications and environmental conditions. See /usr/ports/benchmarks for some standard benchmarks. You can probably also do some reasonable testing just reading and writing files under NFS and timing the results. That would give you "real world" figures rather than something contrived by an advocate from either side who only hopes that you'll accept his bogus numbers as factual rather than actually testing for yourself. :-) -- - Jordan Hubbard FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.