--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:14:18PM -0800, > Danial Thom wrote: > > > Well thats just hogwash Kris. Pure bridging > > performance is a measure of the efficiency of > the > > kernel to do rote tasks like respond to > > interrupts, and the latencies in performing > those > > tasks. Its the best way, IMO, to exercise and > > measure the efficiency of an isolated kernel. > It > > requires no userland activity, so your > results > > aren't muddled by millions of system calls. > Its a > > way to compare apples to apples, which is how > > good testing is done. > > > > As long as you don't have your filesystem on > a > > network, you're in good shape. But thats not > even > > the point. The point is that the purpose of > > tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP > > performance is dismill across the board. > > This statement is simply false. It's actually > quite funny to read. > > For the readers at home: Denial is once again > taking his narrow view > of the world ("everything about the OS is > accurately measured by how > fast the kernel routes network packets!") and > extrapolating it to > infinity, then jumping up and down about it. Whats "false" about it, Kris? First of all, I didn't say that everything about the kernel can be accurately measured by such a test, so why did you twist it to fit your agenda? Its a "good way" to test the interrupt and process switching mechanisms in an isolated kernel. Also, since you don't see to understand the test, bridging is not routing. Its a rote function of moving packets from one interface to another with very little overhead. Its purely interrupt driven, so the kernel's latencies in processing interrupts is well exercised. Its a good test because, unlike crap like netperf, it doesn't involve sockets or any userland tasks. I know you're not a real engineer Kris, so I don't expect you to understand, but you also aren't qualified to discredit the test, since you don't know a damn thing about testing. I know you enjoy being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind on this list Kris, But I doubt people are stupid enough to buy into your continued propaganda. There isn't one credible test that shows that FreeBSD MP is worth any consideration as a good performer, so it seems doubtful that anyone with half a brain thinks it is. Everything today is networking. What good is a fast filesystem if it sits on a klunky kernel or slow networking system? Who's going to build a big honking MP server if is can't handle more network traffic than a good UP system? Do you have a volkwagon engine in your Porche, Kris? The problem with Kris is that he thinks that if his car has a really cool radio that people will buy it, even those its slow as shit. That may be fine for the kind of guys that hang out on the freebsd-questions list, or for little old ladies. But its not "fine" with the kind of people that used to rely on FreeBSD for serious networking tasks. Kris is just a PR front man for a "team" of developers that is lost. Their "theory" on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"