Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
This is old. The guys running the tests blew it in so many ways
that you might as well have just rolled some dice. There's a slashdot
article on it too, and quite a few of the reader comments on these
bozos
Bosko Milekic wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
[ .. ] but all this benchmark proves (in regards to the TCP
results) is that FreeBSD puts its foot down earlier then
other OS's in regards to how much it is willing to dedicate
to the network. In a real
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:05:14PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Use of zalloci() permits allocations to occur at interrupt,
such as allocations for replacement mbuf's in receive rings.
It would be very difficult to maintain FreeBSD's GigaBit
ethernet performance without this type of thing.
Dag-Erling Smorgrav([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.17 07:48:27 +:
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not quite. Linux distributions tend to be extremely
conservative in the IDE options (DMA, interrupt unmasking,
write caching, etc. all disabled) while FreeBSD seems to
have write
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:34:53PM +0200, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
Dag-Erling Smorgrav([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.17 07:48:27 +:
Second, we tried turning write caching on ATA drives off by default,
and boy were you (the user community) pissed. Yes, turning wc off
shows you just
Matt Dillon wrote:
: But this isn't true at all. How many people need to make thousands
: or tens of thousands of simultanious connections to a machine out of the
: box? Almost nobody. So to run a benchmark and have it hit these
:
:You are essentially saying: out primary
It's a lot faster on writes with softupdates enabled. FreeBSD will also
have journaling filesystems soon. Either way, this was not a very good
benchmark.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Rayson Ho wrote:
But how much tuning is needed? You can download a kernel patch for VM,
another kernel patch for FS...
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Jonathan Fortin wrote:
Linux is tuned out of the box, where the others are tuned for
stability.
Not quite. Linux distributions tend to be extremely
conservative in the IDE options (DMA, interrupt unmasking,
write caching, etc. all
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 05:39:49PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Mind you, I do agree that it would be very nice if we [the
industry] could figure out benchmarking tactics which did
not depend on the knowledge level of the person doing the
benchmark. It would also be really nice to see
:...
: to know the first thing about the platform he is running his software
: on is a complete and utter idiot and the company that employs such a
: person has a hellofalot more to worry about then the performance of an
: untuned machine.
:
:We are telling people that FreeBSD is
At 7:12 PM -0400 6/16/01, Jonathan Fortin wrote:
As for the benchmark briefly, It's biased because whoever did it knew fuck
nothing about Unix and Linux doesnt need tuning so Linux won period.
Linux is tuned out of the box, where the others are tuned for stability.
It gets far,
Brad Knowles writes:
It gets far, far better than this. I misunderstood some of the
details of the article the first time I read it. It turns out that
the morons have written an SMTP MTA that keeps all writes in memory
and never flushes them to disk.
...
Go home, the
Matt Dillon wrote:
| Out of the box, FreeBSD (and Linux) work just fine for virtually
| anything you need to do, with very few exceptions. If you need to
| run a huge multi-gigabyte database, or you need to run an EFNET IRC
| server, or a USENET relay, or a SPAM mailer, then you
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Albert D. Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean they should just optimize for FreeBSD, or should they also
use completion ports on Win2K, /dev/poll on Solaris, and RT signals
on Linux? What is wrong with using the portable API on every OS?
If
At 2:49 PM -0400 6/17/01, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
So clearly the developers know what they are supposed to do.
No. Not when they claim that sendmail does precisely the same
thing, and I can easily demonstrate from the RELEASE_NOTES that this
changed in 8.10 (previously, I think
But how much tuning is needed? You can download a kernel patch for VM,
another kernel patch for FS...
I am sure Linux can be even faster on an SMP machine with a Journaling
FS (XFS, RFS, JFS, ext3, etc).
Rayson
--- Kenneth Wayne Culver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not really a hardcore
: But this isn't true at all. How many people need to make thousands
: or tens of thousands of simultanious connections to a machine out of the
: box? Almost nobody. So to run a benchmark and have it hit these
:
:You are essentially saying: out primary target market is small
Greetings,
Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running hard core
network apps. The results are kind of disturbing, with FreeBSD (4.2)
coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k, and Solaris (Intel).
http://www.sysadminmag.com/articles/2001/0107/0107a/0107a.htm
The tests
:
:Greetings,
:
:Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running hard core
:network apps. The results are kind of disturbing, with FreeBSD (4.2)
:coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k, and Solaris (Intel).
This is old. The guys running the tests blew it in so many ways
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
:Greetings,
:
:Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running hard core
:network apps. The results are kind of disturbing, with FreeBSD (4.2)
:coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k, and Solaris (Intel).
This is old.
I didn't believe my eyes
windows is better than FreeBSD..
can't be true
- Original Message --
From: Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matthew Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send: 06:56 PM
Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS
:
:Greetings,
:
:Here is a surprisingly unbiased article
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is old. The guys running the tests blew it in so many ways
that you might as well have just rolled some dice. There's a slashdot
article on it too, and quite a few of the reader comments on these
bozos
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
This is old. The guys running the tests blew it in so many ways
that you might as well have just rolled some dice. There's a slashdot
article on it too, and quite a few of the reader comments on these
bozos are correct. I especially
With gratuitously non-standard quoting which I fixed, Matt Dillon writes:
[Matthew Hagerty]
Here is a surprisingly unbiased article comparing OSes running
hard core network apps. The results are kind of disturbing,
with FreeBSD (4.2) coming in last against Linux (RH), Win2k,
and Solaris
E.B. Dreger writes:
If the programmers who wrote that software used poll() on FreeBSD 4.2,
then I'd say that they need to RTFM and learn about kernel queues and
accept filters.
You mean they should just optimize for FreeBSD, or should they also
use completion ports on Win2K, /dev/poll on
: If you intend to push a system to its limits, you damn well better
: be prepared to tune it properly or you are just wasting your time.
: On any operating system. You will never find joe-user running his
: system into the ground with thousands of simultanious connections
: and ten thousand
Albert D. Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
I'll bet they didn't even bother compiling up a
kernel... something that is utterly trivial in a FreeBSD system, and
if they did they certainly didn't bother tuning it.
Lots of places would not allow this. Heavy tweaking requires heavy
:The only thing that worries me a bit is that both FreeBSD
:and Linux needed to be tuned at all to run these things,
:even if it was just the maximum file descriptor setting.
:
:A lot of this tuning could easily be done dynamically
:(and is done dynamically on linux 2.4), but lots of it
:still
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
It's certainly true that a greater degree of dynamic tuning could be
done, but all this benchmark proves (in regards to the TCP results)
is that FreeBSD puts its foot down earlier then other OS's in regards
to how
At 4:31 PM -0400 6/16/01, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Feel free to post a benchmarking procedure that would let one
person produce fair results. Results ought to be reproducable:
you, I, and an NT kernel developer all get the same answers.
Nice ideal. Hard to imagine it happening any time soon.
At 2:04 PM -0700 6/16/01, Matt Dillon wrote:
:So every FreeBSD server requires an expensive admin to tune it?
:That Win2K solution is looking good now. :-)
:
:These admins now... they never quit their job at just the wrong
Huh? I'm talking about a reasonably smart 16 year old kid who
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:31:41PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
I guess it's fair to shove Linux deep into swap (as pro-FreeBSD
benchmarkers always do), but not fair to make FreeBSD handle a
large directory?
Well... no. This test did stress FreeBSD's ability to handle large
directories,
From: Albert D. Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:31:41 -0400 (EDT)
So every FreeBSD server requires an expensive admin to tune it?
That Win2K solution is looking good now. :-)
That says a lot about your selection criteria.
I
Hi Matt,
follow ups to -chat
On 16-Jun-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
: If you intend to push a system to its limits, you damn well better
: be prepared to tune it properly or you are just wasting your time.
: On any operating system. You will never find joe-user running his
: system into the ground
For this particular benchmark, yes. If you want a rather less
contrived benchmark, why not compare Apache running under both Windows
NT and FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris? It's available for all those platforms
and given that you're running the same application, it would be a fair
assumption that
Hello,
In order to perform a valid benchmark for stricly performance issues and let
aside stability trade offs,
A fair benchmark would be to purchase 3 exact systems, update BIOS, then
deploy Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows2k.
Tune them to the max, each perspective that could be modified to increase
* Jonathan Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010616 19:13] wrote:
Hello,
In order to perform a valid benchmark for stricly performance issues and let
aside stability trade offs,
A fair benchmark would be to purchase 3 exact systems, update BIOS, then
deploy Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows2k.
Tune
At 6:37 PM -0400 6/16/01, Brian Mitchell wrote:
I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a fair benchmark,
nor am I convinced that benchmarks are valuable. Clearly the
benchmark cited is flawed, but what benchmark is not?
I must admit I (personally) have a major ambivalence towards
:a pool machine for a project or customer visit, fixing the switches when they
:blow up after a power cut, or restoring the Exhange databases...They
:don't even manage to find the time to recompile a Solaris kernel!
:
:Dynamic tuning would be ideal to help our IT get best performance out of NFS
This is not really a hardcore networking app but a custom app written by
the person who did the benchmark. The main reason that FreeBSD came in
last was mostly because the guy didn't mount his filesystem correctly.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
Greetings,
Here is a
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Jonathan Fortin wrote:
Linux is tuned out of the box, where the others are tuned for
stability.
Not quite. Linux distributions tend to be extremely
conservative in the IDE options (DMA, interrupt unmasking,
write caching, etc. all disabled) while FreeBSD seems to
have
Greetings All,
I just wanted to thank everyone for the responses! I did not mean to start
such a debated thread. I'm glad to have the information about why FreeBSD
place so poorly in these idiot's tests. I'll have to write SysAdmin a
letter now and ask them why the hell they would publish
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not quite. Linux distributions tend to be extremely
conservative in the IDE options (DMA, interrupt unmasking,
write caching, etc. all disabled) while FreeBSD seems to
have write caching and DMA on by default...
Ahem.
First of all, Linux' file system
43 matches
Mail list logo
