Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
* Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011128 01:41] wrote: I know my lack of information isn't helping much, and that I've not done much to help debug the problem. However, all my attempts to track down what is causing this from a high-level (w/out digging into the code itself and analyzing tcpdump output) have come up empty. It's not only not helping much, but it's pretty lame: .) You won't run tcpdump. .) You won't look at the code. .) You won't give good details. Is there anything else you can do other than to possibly spread FUD about FreeBSD's network performance? Get off your behind and do some serious investigation (I'm pretty certain you're capable of it) and we'll be able to work this out in no time. -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I think I made a mistake by not opening this immediately. Certainly I haven't seen any particularly animosity here so far, and Richard can defend himself, so: FreeBSD hackers, meet Richard Sharpe. Richard, meet the hackers. As I said, Richard's a member of the Samba team. He's also going to be working on FreeBSD in the foreseeable future, so his intentions here are completely honourable :-) He's sent me the report, but since I didn't say I would send it to the entire development team, I'll wait for his go-ahead (and the reply to a couple of questions) before sending it on. Greg On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 0:41:18 -0700, Nate Williams wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. I know my lack of information isn't helping much, and that I've not done much to help debug the problem. However, all my attempts to track down what is causing this from a high-level (w/out digging into the code itself and analyzing tcpdump output) have come up empty. This is obviously something *somebody* (not me) should look in to. On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 0:51:11 -0700, Nate Williams wrote: On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 8:45:07 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Williams writes: Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. It's actually pretty awful. However, even with the fix I merged back into RELENG_4, the performance with/without newreno is still *much* worse (in terms of consistantly giving the same results) than the code in FreeBSD 3.x. The interesting thing is that the application that's getting the most press is one of our field technicians downloading a file over anonymous ftp by hand, so it's not like we're generating tons of traffic, or alot of parallel connections. The connections hang, abort, and those that complete have numbers that are *all* over the map. However, when connected to a Linux box on the same network, none of these bad things occur. :( (And, we've verified the network is up by running ping in another window.) On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 18:22:10 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 1:56:14 -0700, Wes Peters wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:41:18 -0700 Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) And they somehow think any variant of Linux is going to be better on this point? My recent experience with Linux would say otherwise, but that was on an Intel Architecture Labs variant that is somewhat out of date, too. Well, it ties in with Richard's experience. On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 0:56:02 -0700, Nate Williams wrote: FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
* Greg Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011127 23:08] wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. He is going to be sending me a copy of his preliminary report later today, and he doesn't mind sharing it. I'm a little concerned about the Them vs. Us attitude such a report could cause. He's not out to show that Linux is better than FreeBSD; on the contrary, he would be a lot happier if the results were in favour of FreeBSD, since otherwise he has to do something about it. I'd like a few of us to take a look at what he's done first, and either point out where he can tune the FreeBSD system, or how to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. Who's interested? I'm somewhat interested, it obviously depends on the level of detail and depth of this report, if it's as shallow as your and Nate's 'rumors' then I probably won't be able to help as I'll be too busy switching all my machines over to Linux rather than doing the legwork to get down to the bottom of this alleged performance problem. :P -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 2:03:21 -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Greg Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011127 23:08] wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. He is going to be sending me a copy of his preliminary report later today, and he doesn't mind sharing it. I'm a little concerned about the Them vs. Us attitude such a report could cause. He's not out to show that Linux is better than FreeBSD; on the contrary, he would be a lot happier if the results were in favour of FreeBSD, since otherwise he has to do something about it. I'd like a few of us to take a look at what he's done first, and either point out where he can tune the FreeBSD system, or how to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. Who's interested? I'm somewhat interested, it obviously depends on the level of detail and depth of this report, if it's as shallow as your and Nate's 'rumors' then I probably won't be able to help as I'll be too busy switching all my machines over to Linux rather than doing the legwork to get down to the bottom of this alleged performance problem. That's uncalled for. I said that I had more information coming in, as you can see above, and Nate did apologize for lack of information. We don't always have the time to do the research we want. I certainly don't. Which would have been more useful: say to Richard sorry, my plate's full, or I can't help you, but I'll try to find people who aren't too aggressive to help you. Nate has given some information. You can't blame him for not having the time to do the legwork. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I know my lack of information isn't helping much, and that I've not done much to help debug the problem. However, all my attempts to track down what is causing this from a high-level (w/out digging into the code itself and analyzing tcpdump output) have come up empty. It's not only not helping much, but it's pretty lame: .) You won't run tcpdump. I haven't been able to run tcpdump up till this point because the field trail folks won't tell me when they're running the tests. I haven't been able to get any real-world data (yet), and after the recent drubbing that Linux made, I may not get a chance because they're chomping at the bit to replace the box now. .) You won't look at the code. Wrong. I've merged in bugfixes. But, I don't have time to walk through the entire TCP/IP stack trying to figure out what's changed between 3.X and 4.X to see what's changed. .) You won't give good details. I'm telling you all the details I have. If I had better details, I'd have given them. I've not said anything up till this point because I haven't had good details, but Greg's post reflected the same sort of behavior I've been seeing, so I was simply agreeing with his unknown friend. Is there anything else you can do other than to possibly spread FUD about FreeBSD's network performance? You call it FUD, I call it real-world results. I'm not the only one who's seen these kinds of results. Get off your behind and do some serious investigation (I'm pretty certain you're capable of it) and we'll be able to work this out in no time. It's not my problem, except because of my interest in making FreeBSD look good. Fighting for FreeBSD has created me more enemies than friends here, so I'm not doing myself any favors continually try to defend the numbers/results we're seeing. If you want me to shutup and go into a corner, it might make you feel better, but it certainly won't solve the real problem. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
* Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011128 02:14] wrote: If you want me to shutup and go into a corner, it might make you feel better, but it certainly won't solve the real problem. I made it clear that my problem was not with the complaint itself. My problem with it was with the lack of technical backing or any real way for me to reproduce the problem. So no, I do not want you to shutup and go into a corner, I want you to get off your ass and gather us all up some useful information so that we can solve the problem. Lastly, if these people are intent on running Linnex, they'll spread however much FUD that they need to and provide as little information as possible in order to effect the switch. -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 2:22:40 -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011128 02:14] wrote: If you want me to shutup and go into a corner, it might make you feel better, but it certainly won't solve the real problem. I made it clear that my problem was not with the complaint itself. My problem with it was with the lack of technical backing or any real way for me to reproduce the problem. So no, I do not want you to shutup and go into a corner, I want you to get off your ass and gather us all up some useful information so that we can solve the problem. OK, we're agreed on that. So let's do it. Lastly, if these people are intent on running Linnex, they'll spread however much FUD that they need to and provide as little information as possible in order to effect the switch. That in itself is FUD. I've been working a lot with Linux users, and one thing I've consistently found is the large number of people who are really interested in using FreeBSD as an alternative. Here in South Australia we've got to the point where the local Linux user group recognizes FreeBSD as a viable alternative. Yes, there are fanatics on both sides, but we should try to ignore them, or convince them of the errors of their ways. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
If you want me to shutup and go into a corner, it might make you feel better, but it certainly won't solve the real problem. I made it clear that my problem was not with the complaint itself. No, you didn't. My problem with it was with the lack of technical backing or any real way for me to reproduce the problem. For what it's worth, I can't reproduce it either, but that's because of lack of resources, not ability. I don't have the necessary hardware/network connection to cause the weird behavior. If I did, I'd give you better information. However, I don't doubt they're seeing this behavior. They've got graphs and what behavior I could reproduce showed that things were indeed completely bogus. Disabling newreno fixed *those* problems I could fix. to shutup and go into a corner, I want you to get off your ass and gather us all up some useful information so that we can solve the problem. No can do, sorry. Lastly, if these people are intent on running Linnex, they'll spread however much FUD that they need to and provide as little information as possible in order to effect the switch. It's not FUD. These people aren't OS bigots, they're folks trying to get a job done. They could care less if the box was running WinNT, if it got the job done. (FWIW, the ftp client boxes are running NT and Win2K, which *may* have something to do with it, but I don't know, since I can't reproduce it. :() Basically, all I'm saying is that Greg's friend results are similar to what I'm seeing. What's causing this is unknown. If it was known I wouldn't have sent any messages out, since I could have fixed it myself. But, I can't, so you get a message saying 'Me Too', which isn't much help except to verify that there may be some truth to the report. (Call it unbiased independant verification.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Howdy, I had a similar problem, especially with different FreeBSD 4.x boxes (4.1.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4-stable after dirpref merge) and with Windows NT systems, but the crap performance was only limited to FTP. SSH, NFS and CVS operations were all fine. The pre-4.3 boxes are all using RTL8029 cards, and the 4.3+ boxes are all Intel 8255x-based cards. The laptop has 4.4-stable and a D-Link DFE-650. The poor performance showed up in interactions with the 100Mbit/s cards (Intel, D-Link). They have all disappeared since I've explicitly set the links to 100Mbit/s with full-duplex. The switches and hubs are all 10/100 D-Links. My guess is that the autonegotiation feature of both the fxp and ed drivers somehow adversely affects FTP. However this is only surmise. My fix was based more on an inspired guess than methodical practice and I didn't get the opportunity to delve deeper into the reasons for the problem. Sometimes the real world can be a pain :-) Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web: http://www.aims.com.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nate Williams Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2001 18:51 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Nate Williams; Greg Lehey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux? Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. It's actually pretty awful. However, even with the fix I merged back into RELENG_4, the performance with/without newreno is still *much* worse (in terms of consistantly giving the same results) than the code in FreeBSD 3.x. The interesting thing is that the application that's getting the most press is one of our field technicians downloading a file over anonymous ftp by hand, so it's not like we're generating tons of traffic, or alot of parallel connections. The connections hang, abort, and those that complete have numbers that are *all* over the map. However, when connected to a Linux box on the same network, none of these bad things occur. :( (And, we've verified the network is up by running ping in another window.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Howdy, As a follow-up, I've just checked the newreno setting on the boxes I experienced the problems with - newreno is on. I'll try turning it off and see if I experience any problems. BTW, what does it do exactly? Also, a query on my timesheets shows that I had the same FTP problems on a FreeBSD 3.2 box with the dc driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10/100 hub (full duplex), and also a FreeBSD 4.0 box with the rl driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10Mbit/s hub (full duplex). Disabling autonegotiation on the FreeBSD NIC fixed it. Only FTP was affected in both cases - SMTP, HTTP and SSH were all fine. It's beginning to look like a full duplex and autonegotiation problem. I hope this is of help to someone. Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web: http://www.aims.com.au -Original Message- From: Chris Knight [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2001 20:08 To: 'Nate Williams' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux? Howdy, I had a similar problem, especially with different FreeBSD 4.x boxes (4.1.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4-stable after dirpref merge) and with Windows NT systems, but the crap performance was only limited to FTP. SSH, NFS and CVS operations were all fine. The pre-4.3 boxes are all using RTL8029 cards, and the 4.3+ boxes are all Intel 8255x-based cards. The laptop has 4.4-stable and a D-Link DFE-650. The poor performance showed up in interactions with the 100Mbit/s cards (Intel, D-Link). They have all disappeared since I've explicitly set the links to 100Mbit/s with full-duplex. The switches and hubs are all 10/100 D-Links. My guess is that the autonegotiation feature of both the fxp and ed drivers somehow adversely affects FTP. However this is only surmise. My fix was based more on an inspired guess than methodical practice and I didn't get the opportunity to delve deeper into the reasons for the problem. Sometimes the real world can be a pain :-) Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web: http://www.aims.com.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nate Williams Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2001 18:51 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Nate Williams; Greg Lehey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux? Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. It's actually pretty awful. However, even with the fix I merged back into RELENG_4, the performance with/without newreno is still *much* worse (in terms of consistantly giving the same results) than the code in FreeBSD 3.x. The interesting thing is that the application that's getting the most press is one of our field technicians downloading a file over anonymous ftp by hand, so it's not like we're generating tons of traffic, or alot of parallel connections. The connections hang, abort, and those that complete have numbers that are *all* over the map. However, when connected to a Linux box on the same network, none of these bad things occur. :( (And, we've verified the network is up by running ping in another window.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
386BSD got it from the MACH Vm which was grafted into BSD some time in 1990 or the late 80's On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Gérard Roudier wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:54:17PM -, Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write? As far as I am aware, the BSD family of operating systems have always used copy-on-write (at least since 4.3BSD). My awareness is different and tells me that 4.3BSD had just vfork() but not COW yet, while System V had it years before. Sorry if I am wrong. You're not. My bad. At home now, and checking my daemon book I see SystemV, Release 2 got it in 1984, and it was introduced in 4.4BSD in 1993. Ceri -- keep a mild groove on To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:41:18AM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. Someone recently submitted a PR about TCP based NFS being significantly slower under 4.X. I wonder if it could be related? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=misc/32141 There is quite a lot of detail in the PR and the submitter has no trouble reproducing the problem. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
libc and irs
Hi, Can someone please help me with (hopefully) a simple problem (don't know if this is -questions or -hackers question). I want to set up a 4.4 (stable) system to use the IRS facilities in bind (9.2) - I can build the static and shared libbind libraries (ldconfig finds shared libraries ok), and assume I need to rebuild libc and link against the shared libbind library. Not quite sure if this is correct and if so, how to do it. thanks Foster Hayward Victoria University of Technology To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Someone recently submitted a PR about TCP based NFS being significantly slower under 4.X. I wonder if it could be related? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=misc/32141 There is quite a lot of detail in the PR and the submitter has no trouble reproducing the problem. For what it is worth i have exchanged mail with Alexander Haderer the author of the PR, and no, i have not seen nor reproduced his problem. I have done NFS exchanges between FreeBSD machines, and with Linux machines with NFS V3/TCP started by amd, since it was his problem, and all my speeds have been of the order of nominal speed (10 Mb/s and 100 Mb/s). On FreeBSD i am using FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE #0: Wed Oct 3 the NIC's are Intel 100 Mb/s 3Com 100 Mb/s and a D-Link 10 Mb/s on a laptop connected to a 3Com switch. No special tuning related to newreno. I have also downloaded a lot of things via ftp, locally and non locally and have observed no special slowing down. In particular i downloaded via ftp to a Linux box with a 100Mb/s 3Com card a whole 600Mb iso image at nominal wire speed. The Linux boxes run the latest RedHat. Here is also a ftp test to a Solaris box: 8727260 bytes received in 0.92 seconds (9275.56 Kbytes/s) As far as i can see always very correct speeds. This is extremely strange since Alexander Haderer was very aware of the half-duplex vs full-duplex issues and triple checked his installation. The only thing i have not checked is connection to a box running old version of FreeBSD, since i don't have one. -- Michel TALON To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Hello, Also, a query on my timesheets shows that I had the same FTP problems on a FreeBSD 3.2 box with the dc driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10/100 hub (full duplex), and also a FreeBSD 4.0 box with the rl driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10Mbit/s hub (full duplex). Sorry, maybe it's my fault, but is there anything out there which has the name: hub and it's full-duplex? Or is it a switch in the above text, incorrectly mentioned as a hub? -- Attila Nagye-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Budapest Polytechnic (BMF.HU) @work: +361 210 1415 (194) H-1084 Budapest, Tavaszmezo u. 15-17. cell.: +3630 306 6758 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. Most likely between 3.x and 4.4-REL the driver for the network card(s) that you're using got changed, and are now causing problems. Many drivers are now much more picky about media problems, so it would be wise to make sure that the hosts on the local LAN segment aren't a) filling the LAN with garbage from a bad cable, and b) the FreeBSD is hooked to the LAN with a good cable. -- Matt Emmerton To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD on vmware
iedowse Someone mentioned on a list somewhere that vmware takes forever to iedowse emulate the cmpxchg instruction, and that using the I386_CPU version iedowse of atomic_cmpset_int() helps a lot. I really know I'm doing a stupid thing, but here is benchmark results of both plain and patched 5-current (as of Nov/26/2001). Patched FreeBSD is about 10% faster than before. *** Before: TESTBASELINE RESULT INDEX Arithmetic Test (type = double) 2541.7 156596.8 61.6 Dhrystone 2 without register variables 22366.3 1214131.7 54.3 Execl Throughput Test 16.5 25.11.5 File Copy (30 seconds)179.0 1684.09.4 Pipe-based Context Switching Test 1318.5 710.90.5 Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 4.07.01.8 = SUM of 6 items 129.1 AVERAGE 21.5 *** After: TESTBASELINE RESULT INDEX Arithmetic Test (type = double) 2541.7 167038.3 65.7 Dhrystone 2 without register variables 22366.3 1267100.0 56.7 Execl Throughput Test 16.5 45.02.7 File Copy (30 seconds)179.0 2863.0 16.0 Pipe-based Context Switching Test 1318.5 1372.61.0 Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 4.0 12.53.1 = SUM of 6 items 145.3 AVERAGE 24.2 *** Note that both are tested with: - Same kernel configuration (but not GENERIC kernel) - VMware Workstation 3.0.0 build 1455, WindowsXP Pro host - 96MB RAM for FreeBSD guest OS - 1.9GB Virtual Disk is on ATA66 HDD of host PC. - Host PC has one Pentium3 850Mhz CPU -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:51:11AM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. It's actually pretty awful. However, even with the fix I merged back into RELENG_4, the performance with/without newreno is still *much* worse (in terms of consistantly giving the same results) than the code in FreeBSD 3.x. The interesting thing is that the application that's getting the most press is one of our field technicians downloading a file over anonymous ftp by hand, so it's not like we're generating tons of traffic, or alot of parallel connections. The connections hang, abort, and those that complete have numbers that are *all* over the map. However, when connected to a Linux box on the same network, none of these bad things occur. :( Please, please provide information and dumps! To be honest, this is the first I've heard about bad network performance, (other than the NewReno issue), and I would really appreciate raw tcpdumps to analyze. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Richard Sharpe wrote: I am quite happy for the report to be sent out. I do not believe I have an ax to grind here. While my background is more in Linux over the last few years, it has been fun to play around with FreeBSD (and it has more of an Ultrix feel to it :-). I am seeking to understand where I may have made mistakes, and not presented FreeBSD in its best light. Greg has already provided me with some feedback on that. However, I am also interested in where there might be some limits to concurrency (multiple people in the file system, etc), because in my new role I will be seeking to make it possible for Samba on a FreeBSD base to support 1000s to 10s of thousands of clients. Richard, Great! I'm really happy you'll have the opportunity to spend some time on this--I know that a large number of FreeBSD consumers rely on Samba daily to get their jobs done, and any work you do relating to that will be something they appreciate a great deal :-). As you no doubt know, making FreeBSD perform as well as possible is something that we're extremely interested in, and would love to have your feedback on. If there's anything we can do to make your job easier, please don't hesitate to let us know. Thanks! Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I had a similar problem, especially with different FreeBSD 4.x boxes (4.1.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4-stable after dirpref merge) and with Windows NT systems, but the crap performance was only1 limited to FTP. SSH, NFS and CVS operations were all fine. We're not using any of the other listed services, but we are using both FTP and WWW, and both show decreased performance. (However, the latter may be a configuration issue, so it may be irrelevant.) The pre-4.3 boxes are all using RTL8029 cards, and the 4.3+ boxes are all Intel 8255x-based cards. The laptop has 4.4-stable and a D-Link DFE-650. The poor performance showed up in interactions with the 100Mbit/s cards (Intel, D-Link). I'm using an fxp cards, as described in the email to Peter. They have all disappeared since I've explicitly set the links to 100Mbit/s with full-duplex. The switches and hubs are all 10/100 D-Links. I've messed with auto-negotiations. The funny thing is that performance on the LAN segment is quite good, it's that non-LAN performance is poor. My guess is that the autonegotiation feature of both the fxp and ed drivers somehow adversely affects FTP. Hmm, I can hard-code and see what happens. I did mess with the autonegotiation stuff initially, and it didn't seem to make any difference. I will try again. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
As a follow-up, I've just checked the newreno setting on the boxes I experienced the problems with - newreno is on. I'll try turning it off and see if I experience any problems. BTW, what does it do exactly? It's supposed to make performance of resends/ACKs better in the case of packet loss. Also, a query on my timesheets shows that I had the same FTP problems on a FreeBSD 3.2 box with the dc driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10/100 hub (full duplex), and also a FreeBSD 4.0 box with the rl driver talking to an NT4 Terminal Server with onboard Intel 8255x controller via a 10Mbit/s hub (full duplex). Disabling autonegotiation on the FreeBSD NIC fixed it. Only FTP was affected in both cases - SMTP, HTTP and SSH were all fine. I've got HTTP problems as well, although as I stated before, that might be a configuration issue. FTP is certainly effected. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I've (reasonably) recently installed 4.3-Release on a system running Samba and a few light telnet apps, and noticed similar performance problems. The SMB sessions would randomly change speed, and telnet sessions would suffer from occasional hesitation (this is on a Dual PIII-700 MHz machine with 1 Gb of RAM, which is currently very lightly loaded). I managed to track the problem down to the duplex settings on both the Ethernet cards (AT-2500 TX, Realtek 8139 based, AFAIK) and the 10/100 Switch. Forcing both the cards and the switch to particular settings cured the problem, and lead to a massive performance increase. FTP seems to be particularly badly affected by the constant collisions (causing backoff). The problem can be tricky to find as the switch wasn't perceptably showing collisions on the collision LED, but viewing the switch stats showed a different story! I've noticed similar problems with Linux and certain cards (it was a while ago). John Vinters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:07:38 +1100 From: Chris Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux? Howdy, I had a similar problem, especially with different FreeBSD 4.x boxes (4.1.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4-stable after dirpref merge) and with Windows NT systems, but the crap performance was only limited to FTP. SSH, NFS and CVS operations were all fine. The pre-4.3 boxes are all using RTL8029 cards, and the 4.3+ boxes are all Intel 8255x-based cards. The laptop has 4.4-stable and a D-Link DFE-650. The poor performance showed up in interactions with the 100Mbit/s cards (Intel, D-Link). They have all disappeared since I've explicitly set the links to 100Mbit/s with full-duplex. The switches and hubs are all 10/100 D-Links. My guess is that the autonegotiation feature of both the fxp and ed drivers somehow adversely affects FTP. However this is only surmise. My fix was based more on an inspired guess than methodical practice and I didn't get the opportunity to delve deeper into the reasons for the problem. Sometimes the real world can be a pain :-) Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web: http://www.aims.com.au To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD on vmware
I could not even get 'Currnet' to boot at all under VMware 3.0 without applying the patch that was mentioned a couple weeks ago under Win2K... -- Glenn Gombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] - email (513) 587-2643 x2263 - voicemail/fax Makoto Matsushita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: iedowse Someone mentioned on a list somewhere that vmware takes forever to iedowse emulate the cmpxchg instruction, and that using the I386_CPU version iedowse of atomic_cmpset_int() helps a lot. I really know I'm doing a stupid thing, but here is benchmark results of both plain and patched 5-current (as of Nov/26/2001). Patched FreeBSD is about 10% faster than before. *** Before: TESTBASELINE RESULT INDEX Arithmetic Test (type = double) 2541.7 156596.8 61.6 Dhrystone 2 without register variables 22366.3 1214131.7 54.3 Execl Throughput Test 16.5 25.1 1.5 File Copy (30 seconds)179.0 1684.0 9.4 Pipe-based Context Switching Test 1318.5 710.9 0.5 Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 4.07.0 1.8 = SUM of 6 items 129.1 AVERAGE 21.5 *** After: TESTBASELINE RESULT INDEX Arithmetic Test (type = double) 2541.7 167038.3 65.7 Dhrystone 2 without register variables 22366.3 1267100.0 56.7 Execl Throughput Test 16.5 45.0 2.7 File Copy (30 seconds)179.0 2863.0 16.0 Pipe-based Context Switching Test 1318.5 1372.6 1.0 Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 4.0 12.5 3.1 = SUM of 6 items 145.3 AVERAGE 24.2 *** Note that both are tested with: - Same kernel configuration (but not GENERIC kernel) - VMware Workstation 3.0.0 build 1455, WindowsXP Pro host - 96MB RAM for FreeBSD guest OS - 1.9GB Virtual Disk is on ATA66 HDD of host PC. - Host PC has one Pentium3 850Mhz CPU -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message __ FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: multi-disk file systems on FreeBSD?
* Dan Ellard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011128 11:49] wrote: Are there a way under FreeBSD to build a file system using more than one special file? For example, I have a machine with three 9G SCSI disks, and I'd like to build a 27G file system by combining them. Yup, see the vinum man page. -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: multi-disk file systems on FreeBSD?
man 8 vinum On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:48:48PM -0500, Dan Ellard wrote: Are there a way under FreeBSD to build a file system using more than one special file? For example, I have a machine with three 9G SCSI disks, and I'd like to build a 27G file system by combining them. Thanks, -Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: multi-disk file systems on FreeBSD?
vinum..duh..sorry guys. My brain kicked out ccd before I could look it up. On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Michael Lucas wrote: man 8 vinum On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:48:48PM -0500, Dan Ellard wrote: Are there a way under FreeBSD to build a file system using more than one special file? For example, I have a machine with three 9G SCSI disks, and I'd like to build a 27G file system by combining them. Thanks, -Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message --- Geoff Mohler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: multi-disk file systems on FreeBSD?
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Dan Ellard wrote: Are there a way under FreeBSD to build a file system using more than one special file? For example, I have a machine with three 9G SCSI disks, and I'd like to build a 27G file system by combining them. See vinum(8) or ccdconfig(8). A very quick perusal of the documentation in the handbook would have revealed this to you. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/raid.html Brandon D. Valentine -- Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari. - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Thanks! (Re: multi-disk file systems on FreeBSD?)
Thanks to everyone who responded to my query. It looks like vinum and/or ccd will do exactly what I want and they look very straightforward to configure. I probably could have discovered this myself (as several people pointed out), but I was blinded by my assumption that RAID implied redundancy-- so I didn't look at the RAID stuff at all. Now I know better. Thanks, -Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:35:48PM +, John Vinters wrote: I've (reasonably) recently installed 4.3-Release on a system running Samba and a few light telnet apps, and noticed similar performance problems. The SMB sessions would randomly change speed, and telnet sessions would suffer from occasional hesitation (this is on a Dual PIII-700 MHz machine with 1 Gb of RAM, which is currently very lightly loaded). I managed to track the problem down to the duplex settings on both the Ethernet cards (AT-2500 TX, Realtek 8139 based, AFAIK) and the 10/100 Switch. Forcing both the cards and the switch to particular settings cured the problem, and lead to a massive performance increase. FTP seems to be particularly badly affected by the constant collisions (causing backoff). The problem can be tricky to find as the switch wasn't perceptably showing collisions on the collision LED, but viewing the switch stats showed a different story! I've noticed similar problems with Linux and certain cards (it was a while ago). John Vinters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I am seeing dismal ftp performance on my 4.x boxes. I have a network of 4 machines, three of which are running -STABLE from Nov 22. The other machine is running NetBSD 1.5.2 Release. One of the FreeBSD machines has a base 10 cards in it and has reasonable performace with ftp transfer rates around 1.1Megs/sec. The NetBSD machine is a sparcstation 10 with an onboard intel base 10 adapter, and it too sees reasonable ftp performance. The other two -STABLE boxes have 100tx cards in them. One is a Linksys LNE100TX, and the other is an intel Pro 10/100B/100+. The hub for this network is an 8 port SOHOware autosensing affair. Both of the 100 cards auto-negotiate to 100tx half-duplex. I can get appoximately 1.5Megs/sec out of them using ftp. I have tried swapping cables, swapping ports, and replacing the hub with a crossover cable and manually configuring the cards for either full or half duplex operation. None of these steps makes any difference at all. I can reliably duplicate my transfer speeds on a 600 meg file with a std. deviation of less than a half a second no matter what network configuration I use. My next step will be to try some different NICs, but I don't have anything here that is 100tx based to swap with. I have gotten proper transfer rates out of these machines in the past, but I don't remember if the network cards have changed since then. I rarely move large files around at all, and so only looked into this as a curiosity when seeing this thread. I also intend to try some NFS mounts out to see if this is a protocol issue or not. Josh To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On 2001-11-28 19:59:38, Richard Sharpe wrote: Greg Lehey wrote: As I said, Richard's a member of the Samba team. He's also going to be working on FreeBSD in the foreseeable future, so his intentions here are completely honourable :-) He's sent me the report, but since I didn't say I would send it to the entire development team, I'll wait for his go-ahead (and the reply to a couple of questions) before sending it on. I am quite happy for the report to be sent out. I do not believe I have an ax to grind here. While my background is more in Linux over the last few years, it has been fun to play around with FreeBSD (and it has more of an Ultrix feel to it :-). Yes, please do send the report, Richard. When you are ready to send it, and if you want to send it, that is. Samba is something that I always thought works better with Linux, but I have no data to back this wild guess up. Your report will certainly be welcome in the effort to shed some light on this. -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD on vmware
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Makoto Matsushita writes: I really know I'm doing a stupid thing, but here is benchmark results of both plain and patched 5-current (as of Nov/26/2001). Patched FreeBSD is about 10% faster than before. ... but only if you spend most of your time running CPU benchmarks :-) Your results show a 50-100% speed increase for operations requiring a lot of kernel activity. Remember also that interrupts etc. cause a background rate of cmpxchg instructions that is quite high. On slower CPUs (I was using a 400MHz PII), the interrupts can soak up virtually all of the available processing capacity without the patch. I suspect this effect is responsible for the most dramatic speedups. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Gérard Roudier wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:54:17PM -, Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write? As far as I am aware, the BSD family of operating systems have always used copy-on-write (at least since 4.3BSD). My awareness is different and tells me that 4.3BSD had just vfork() but not COW yet, while System V had it years before. Sorry if I am wrong. You're not. My bad. At home now, and checking my daemon book I see SystemV, Release 2 got it in 1984, and it was introduced in 4.4BSD in 1993. I was remembering from such a book I have had for reading a couple a years ago. :) The COW comes from the complex :) Mach VM. So FreeBSD have had COW (at least in theory) years before 1993 and actually not after Win/NT, since the first mostly running Win/NT release may well have been the Beta-March 93. Gérard. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
Yay..stable jumbo frames! :^) On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Prafulla Deuskar wrote: All, Intel Corporation has released a gigabit driver for PRO/1000 series of adapters. The driver is available for download from the following url: http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=415 The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Thanks, Prafulla To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message --- Geoff Mohler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
Prafulla Deuskar wrote: All, Intel Corporation has released a gigabit driver for PRO/1000 series of adapters. That is funny! jlemon commited his gx driver for the same boards just two weeks ago. What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) How come considering their strict NDA policy the last years? The driver is available for download from the following url: http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=415 The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Really? What about the gx driver? -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) Many Intel software products are released under a BSD-like license. Consider the ACPI CA codebase we use. The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Really? What about the gx driver? The 'gx' driver was committed so that Jonathan's code would be on record, since he'd spent so much time and effort on it. Testing so far has indicated that the Intel driver is generally superior, but it's not a very BSD-like driver and under some circumstances this can be considered a bad thing. The Intel driver will be the preferred driver for these cards. = Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) Many Intel software products are released under a BSD-like license. Consider the ACPI CA codebase we use. The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Really? What about the gx driver? The 'gx' driver was committed so that Jonathan's code would be on record, since he'd spent so much time and effort on it. Testing so far has indicated that the Intel driver is generally superior, but No, sorry. Testing has shown no such thing; the performance of the drivers is equivalent, or even that gx has a slight edge. The Intel driver will be the preferred driver for these cards. That still is under discussion. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
Jonathan Lemon wrote: In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) Many Intel software products are released under a BSD-like license. Consider the ACPI CA codebase we use. The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Really? What about the gx driver? The 'gx' driver was committed so that Jonathan's code would be on record, since he'd spent so much time and effort on it. Testing so far has indicated that the Intel driver is generally superior, but No, sorry. Testing has shown no such thing; the performance of the drivers is equivalent, or even that gx has a slight edge. Well, the experience on irc.snoogans.org begs to differ. The Intel driver sustained much higher rates under attack than what it took to make gx fall over completely. The Intel driver will be the preferred driver for these cards. That still is under discussion. More to the point, let the respective drivers stand on their own merits. There is no need to decide for one or the other. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:05:01PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: Jonathan Lemon wrote: In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) Many Intel software products are released under a BSD-like license. Consider the ACPI CA codebase we use. The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Really? What about the gx driver? The 'gx' driver was committed so that Jonathan's code would be on record, since he'd spent so much time and effort on it. Testing so far has indicated that the Intel driver is generally superior, but No, sorry. Testing has shown no such thing; the performance of the drivers is equivalent, or even that gx has a slight edge. Well, the experience on irc.snoogans.org begs to differ. The Intel driver sustained much higher rates under attack than what it took to make gx fall over completely. Really? This is the first I've heard; the feedback I received from ps was that the gx driver was able to sustain a higher load once I fixed an off-by-one error. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
The Intel driver will be the preferred driver for these cards. That still is under discussion. More to the point, let the respective drivers stand on their own merits. There is no need to decide for one or the other. This is, unfortunately, not entirely true. One of them is going to have to be the default, since we can't have them both attach to the card. 8) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
(no subject)
As I mentioned above, we CAN license the driver code and the DDK for development. This means that you could produce FreeBSD drivers which we could then distribute in a binary form under a free end-user license. Frankly this is the only way I can see that FreeBSD drivers for the 5xx series would ever come about. Porting SAND over, while having advantages of long term support, is just overkill for this, besides which it's unlikely you will get a FreeBSD developer to work on GPL code. This would end up putting a WANic 5xx driver into the same status as the drivers for the Emerging Technologies, or Sangoma sync cards, which both come with binary-only FreeBSD drivers. It would actually have a leg up over those drivers because it would have Netgraph hooks and I believe that the Sangoma drivers don't (but I've never worked with the Sangoma cards so I don't know for certain) The concept that netgraph hooks are a leg up on say, ETs drivers that have integrated bandwidth management and prioritization, WAN bridging support, load balancing and a probably 25% performance advantage is a bit entertaining. Unless you need to do some convoluted encapsulation netgraph is, aside from being appallingly non-standard to anything else in the market, not much of an advantage, and its a poster child for the trade off of flexibility versus performance. Lets face it. If you were going to sit down and design an interface for frame relay, multi-protocol support, etc, you'd have to be smoking something pretty strong to come up with netgraph. But its free and there is source, so it must be great! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
Mike Smith wrote: The Intel driver will be the preferred driver for these cards. That still is under discussion. More to the point, let the respective drivers stand on their own merits. There is no need to decide for one or the other. This is, unfortunately, not entirely true. One of them is going to have to be the default, since we can't have them both attach to the card. 8) Right now it's the user's choice. Neither are in GENERIC. We have a preload mechanism that can serve us well enough for this for the time being until it is clear what we should do. CDROM installs are most likely going to use cdldr soon so we will have the entire module suite available from loader. For boot floppies we should probably use the one that is smaller on disk.. but we also have the the embryonic driver disk in the pipeline for real floppy installs. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Intel gigabit driver
All, Intel Corporation has released a gigabit driver for PRO/1000 series of adapters. The driver is available for download from the following url: http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=415 The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Thanks, Prafulla To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Intel gigabit driver
A belated welcome to being a FreeBSD committer! We look forward eagerly to all contributions you and Intel's experience with networking can bring to us all! -matt On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Prafulla Deuskar wrote: All, Intel Corporation has released a gigabit driver for PRO/1000 series of adapters. The driver is available for download from the following url: http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=415 The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to -STABLE later. Thanks, Prafulla To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
