Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:09:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:09:40 -0500 Received: from cr481834-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com ([24.42.218.237]:28657 "EHLO scotch.homeip.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:09:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:17:46 -0500 (EST) From: God To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD? In-Reply-To: <3A9E72D3.36B28B8F@namesys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 .... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/