d as an advocacy
issue - it has traditionally been the source of statements like
"FreeBSD's threading implementation is weak/bad/broken".
And these days ISC can't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly
xposed as an >
>> advocacy issue - it has traditionally been the source of statements
>> > like "FreeBSD's threading implementation is weak/bad/broken".
>>
>> And these days ISC can't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
>> high-traffic
ns w/ 16GB RAM) and
>> running BIND 9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we slammed a
>> query stream to. On a single threaded BIND, there was a 20%
>> advantage to Linux, on a multi threaded build, Linux trounced
>> FreeBSD (39k to 89k queries/sec)
I don't believe
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:16:29 -0800, Barrett Lyon wrote:
> I also have a few 10GbE interfaces and Ixia chassis that I can run
> tests with if someone wants to send me a spec.
and i'd be willing to test UDP RTP performance on 6.2 with asterisk for
this. RTP traffic can generate thousands of small
I also have a few 10GbE interfaces and Ixia chassis that I can run
tests with if someone wants to send me a spec.
-Barrett
Barrett Lyon
email/sip/iax: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell: +1.916.387.8649
On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:28 AM, Kip Macy wrote:
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock Free
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the same
HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running BIND
9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we slammed a query stream to. On a
single threaded BIND, there was a 20%
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the
same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running
BIND 9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we slammed a query stream
to. On a single threaded BIND, there was a 20% advantage to Linux, on a
multi threaded
n't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone downhill
since 5.x.
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the same HW
(HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running BIND 9.4.0
an
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Is that using PAE or AMD64 ?
amd64 in both cases (Linux and FreeBSD)
-Peter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ISC | OpenPGP 0xE8048D08 | "The bits must flow"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
At 04:06 AM 2/28/2007, Peter Losher wrote:
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the
same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running
Is that using PAE or AMD64 ?
---Mike
___
freebsd-perfor
days ISC can't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone
downhill since 5.x.
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the
same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running
BIND 9.4.0 an
7;s threading implementation is weak/bad/broken".
>
> And these days ISC can't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
> high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone
> downhill since 5.x.
> [..snipped..]
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freeb
n't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on
high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone
downhill since 5.x.
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the
same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running
BIND 9.4.0 and a well know
eeBSD for use on
high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone
downhill since 5.x.
We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the
same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running
BIND 9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we sla
14 matches
Mail list logo
