I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
webcache product's performance, or not?
Hans
hans,
we've found that the TCP and UDP performance on 2.4 is *dramatically*
better than 2.2. with the acenic gig-e driver on PIII-933 UP (66MHz x
64bits PCI) we are getting 993 Mb/s with 2.4.0 with jumbo frames (about
850 Mb/s with standard ethernet frames). the best number we got with 2.2
was about 650 with jumbos and 550 with standard.
i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
todd underwood
[email protected]
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:26:20 +0300
> From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD?
>
> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
>
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
>
> Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
> webcache product's performance, or not?
>
> Hans
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
For the general case its been the same sort of speed as BSD sometimes faster
sometimes not since before 2.2. So the problem they see would need more
analysis to understand the real cause
Todd wrote:
>
> hans,
>
> we've found that the TCP and UDP performance on 2.4 is *dramatically*
> better than 2.2. with the acenic gig-e driver on PIII-933 UP (66MHz x
> 64bits PCI) we are getting 993 Mb/s with 2.4.0 with jumbo frames (about
> 850 Mb/s with standard ethernet frames). the best number we got with 2.2
> was about 650 with jumbos and 550 with standard.
>
> i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
>
> todd underwood
> [email protected]
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:26:20 +0300
> > From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD?
> >
> > I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> > implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
> >
> > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> > BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
> >
> > Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
> > webcache product's performance, or not?
> >
> > Hans
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
Hans
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
>
> Hans
Check with the http://www.swelltech.com people, they should have the info you need.
http://www.swelltech.com/pengies/joe/squidtuneup/t1.html
The above link contains some decent squid performance hints for 2.2+Squid.
-Nathan Dabney
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:03:31 +0300
>
> Todd wrote:
> > hans,
> > we've found that the TCP and UDP performance on 2.4 is *dramatically*
> > better than 2.2.
[..]
> > i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> > > BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
> > > Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
> > > webcache product's performance, or not?
>
> The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
>
It isn't just the webcache industry, heh. I have not yet played with 2.4,
let alone under what I consider stress; but from experience with 2.2 and
eairlier I could see why one would take fbsd over linux. Between
mysterious messages popping up on the console (be it they are related to
NIC drivers or not), and other oddities as ram and fd's fill up, fbsd
could be considered by some to be better suited.
On the topic of perfromance, I see Todd and a few others post some
numbers, but has anyone kept track of them through kernel versions and
drivers? It would be interesting to see something like lmbench run on
each, and their results recorded.
I'm tempted to run various tests before and after I upgrade from 2.2.x to
2.4.x, just to see the difference ....
</crazy>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
>
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
> is on BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
>
> Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
> webcache product's performance, or not?
Hi Hans,
I dont have an answer for you, but it would be nice to know the answer.
Would it be difficult to measure this? It should not be difficult to make
a machine dual boot Linux and BSD, and then we can measure the differences.
If there is a significant performance difference either way then we can
try and investigate it to see why.
Thanks,
Jim
Nathan Dabney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> > 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> > networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
> >
> > Hans
>
> Check with the http://www.swelltech.com people, they should have the info you need.
>
> http://www.swelltech.com/pengies/joe/squidtuneup/t1.html
>
> The above link contains some decent squid performance hints for 2.2+Squid.
>
> -Nathan Dabney
It does not say anything about BSD vs. Linux 2.4 networking code.
If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code, then reiserfs
has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a pain to do.
Hans
James Lewis Nance wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> > implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
> >
> > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
> > is on BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
> >
> > Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
> > webcache product's performance, or not?
>
> Hi Hans,
> I dont have an answer for you, but it would be nice to know the answer.
> Would it be difficult to measure this? It should not be difficult to make
> a machine dual boot Linux and BSD, and then we can measure the differences.
> If there is a significant performance difference either way then we can
> try and investigate it to see why.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
who has already done such work.
Hans
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Nathan Dabney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> > > 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> > > networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
> > >
> > > Hans
> >
> > Check with the http://www.swelltech.com people, they should have the info you need.
> >
> > http://www.swelltech.com/pengies/joe/squidtuneup/t1.html
> >
> > The above link contains some decent squid performance hints for 2.2+Squid.
> >
> > -Nathan Dabney
> It does not say anything about BSD vs. Linux 2.4 networking code.
>
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> pain to do.
You know Hans, both Linux v2.4 and *BSD are free. Install a copy of each
and run a couple of benchmarks. I seem to recall that you have a knack
for running benchmarks...
You can't always rely on having others getting all the information for
you.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code, then reiserfs
> has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a pain to do.
I dont think raw network data helps. 2.2 and FreeBSD are basically the same
speed for raw networking in the general case. So if someone was seeing real
Linux/BSD differences Im concerned it might be a driver but also that it
might not have been networking differences but perhaps VM or disk I/O
performance. Clearly they saw something since its rather hard to mess up
that kind of measuring. I wonder if it was networking though.
The extreme answer to the 2.4 networking performance is the tux specweb
benchmarks but they dont answer for all cases clearly.
Alan
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Nathan Dabney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > The above link contains some decent squid performance hints for 2.2+Squid.
> >
> > -Nathan Dabney
> It does not say anything about BSD vs. Linux 2.4 networking code.
>
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code, then reiserfs
> has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a pain to do.
>
> Hans
Correct, it only has information which would help tune the setup you first described (the 2.2 setup for your client).
The individuals doing the technical side of that company have a high level of knowledge regarding Linux kernel issues which affect Squid performance and can /possibly/ discuss 2.4 vs. BSD issues with you if you ask.
However, for your client I believe the "technical information" would not be as useful as demonstrated performance. I can't imagine that testing squid would require that much effort when compared to porting resierfs.
It's up to you of course.
-Nathan
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
> who has already done such work.
>
Hans,
exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
machines all of which have at least Linux+FreeBSD installed. All my tests
so far (e.g. comparing NFS servers or filesystems etc) showed Linux (2.4)
to be a lot faster than FreeBSD in all areas. However, to get specific
answers you need to ask specific questions. Ask and you shall receive.
(things like SPEC SFS results I can't tell because it is illegal (without
going through proper steps of publishing them), I shouldn't even be saying
that they show Linux to be much faster :)
Regards,
Tigran
Hello!
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> BSD.
What is "iMimic's polymix"? I am almost sure, it is simply buggy
and was not _debugged_ under linux.
Alexey
At 07:03 PM 1/03/2001 +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half
> what it is on
> > > BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
> > >
> > > Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code
> strangling their
> > > webcache product's performance, or not?
Hans, if iMimic's polygraph performance is "half" on linux versus that of
freebsd, then it is a sign that iMimic has some awful code and/or are doing
something wrong in linux versus freebsd.
>The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
>2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage
>Linux
>networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
please stop generalizing. there is at least one vendor in the webcache
industry that is more than happy with the linux networking code.
cheers,
lincoln.
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
> > who has already done such work.
> >
>
> Hans,
>
> exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
> machines all of which have at least Linux+FreeBSD installed. All my tests
> so far (e.g. comparing NFS servers or filesystems etc) showed Linux (2.4)
> to be a lot faster than FreeBSD in all areas. However, to get specific
> answers you need to ask specific questions. Ask and you shall receive.
>
> (things like SPEC SFS results I can't tell because it is illegal (without
> going through proper steps of publishing them), I shouldn't even be saying
> that they show Linux to be much faster :)
>
> Regards,
> Tigran
Thanks Tigan, you helped me move the client past the Linux vs. BSD issue.
Hans
Hello Hans,
Thursday, March 01, 2001, 7:26:20 AM, you wrote:
HR> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
HR> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
HR> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
HR> BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
HR> Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code strangling their
HR> webcache product's performance, or not?
HR> Hans
HR> -
HR> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
HR> the body of a message to [email protected]
HR> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
HR> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
It is not only related to TCP/IP performance. it is related to whole
OS performance. especially performance of file system and stablity,
network driver performance etc.
FreeBSD with softupdates turned on seems horrible fast and stable.
but Linux 2.4 is horrible fast in TCP/IP too. diffcult to compare between
in Linux and FreeBSD. don't do such stupid thing. you'll never get a
correct result.
--
Best regards,
David Xu
<snip stuff about someone using linux for a web cache>
Alan Cox wrote:
> The extreme answer to the 2.4 networking performance is the tux specweb
> benchmarks but they dont answer for all cases clearly.
However, I think you've hit the nail on the head here; much of tux is
just general-purpose network file-blasting. The right hacker could turn
it into the fastest web-cache on the planet with the right modules. I
believe Ingo already did a basic ftp server based on tux, just to
demonstrate this generality.
Ingo? Am I crazy or enlightened?
regards,
David
[email protected] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> pain to do.
So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
code and so on)?
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [email protected] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> > then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> > pain to do.
>
> So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
>
> Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
> GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
> code and so on)?
There would be no reason to BSD licence ReiserFS.. The intent of the BSD
licence is to let anyone who wants to lock it up with more restrictive
licences do so, and if the result is more popular.. take over control of the
software.
So Hans could easily release a GPLed copy of FreeBSD with reiserfs. This
type of activity is encouraged by the BSD people.
> So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
>
> Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
> GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
> code and so on)?
Read Hans licensing. He's been very careful both to make that clear and
cover it.
Hello Gregory,
Friday, March 02, 2001, 9:00:07 PM, you wrote:
GM> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [email protected] (Hans Reiser) writes:
>> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
>> > then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
>> > pain to do.
>>
>> So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
>>
>> Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
>> GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
>> code and so on)?
GM> There would be no reason to BSD licence ReiserFS.. The intent of the BSD
GM> licence is to let anyone who wants to lock it up with more restrictive
GM> licences do so, and if the result is more popular.. take over control of the
GM> software.
GM> So Hans could easily release a GPLed copy of FreeBSD with reiserfs. This
GM> type of activity is encouraged by the BSD people.
GM> -
GM> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
GM> the body of a message to [email protected]
GM> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
GM> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Yes, I have never heard a version -- FreeLinux. Linux is not free.
FreeBSD is true free.
Regards,
linuxjob mailto:[email protected]