--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > At some point you're going to have to figure
> out that there's a reason that
> > every time anyone other than you tests
> FreeBSD it completely pigs out.
> > Sqeezing out some extra bytes in netpe
---
You have some valid points, but they get lost in
your
overly abbrassive tone. Several of us have
watched
your behaviour on the DFly lists, and I dearly
hope that
it doesn't overflow to our lists. It would be a
shame
to loose your insight and input.
Scott
---
Well I only have a few
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
At some point you're going to have to figure out that there's a reason that
every time anyone other than you tests FreeBSD it completely pigs out.
Sqeezing out some extra bytes in netperf isn't "performance". Performance is
everything that a system can
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott asked me if I could take a look at the
impact of changing HZ for some
simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first
couple, and got some results
that were surprising, so I thought I'd post
about them and ask people who
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Scott asked me if I could take a look at the
> impact of changing HZ for some
> simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first
> couple, and got some results
> that were surprising, so I thought I'd post
> about them and ask people who are
> i
Scott asked me if I could take a look at the impact of changing HZ for some
simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first couple, and got some results
that were surprising, so I thought I'd post about them and ask people who are
interested if they could do some investigation also. The short
