Hello Gregory,
Friday, March 02, 2001, 9:00:07 PM, you wrote:
GM> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
>> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
>> > then reiserfs has to get ported to
> So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
>
> Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
> GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
> code and so on)?
Read Hans licensing. He's been very careful both to make that clear and
cover
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> > then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> > pain to do.
>
> So we would get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> pain to do.
So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
Are you aware of the legal implications,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
pain to do.
So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
Are you aware of the legal implications, making
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
pain to do.
So we would get
So we would get dual-licensed ReiserFS (BSD and GPL)?
Are you aware of the legal implications, making your currently
GPL-only code BSD-licensed (status of third party patches for the GPL
code and so on)?
Read Hans licensing. He's been very careful both to make that clear and
cover it.
-
Alan Cox wrote:
> The extreme answer to the 2.4 networking performance is the tux specweb
> benchmarks but they dont answer for all cases clearly.
However, I think you've hit the nail on the head here; much of tux is
just general-purpose network file-blasting. The right hacker could turn
it
Hello Hans,
Thursday, March 01, 2001, 7:26:20 AM, you wrote:
HR> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
HR> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
HR> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
HR> BSD. Has the Linux
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
> > who has already done such work.
> >
>
> Hans,
>
> exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
> machines all of
At 07:03 PM 1/03/2001 +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half
> what it is on
> > > BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
> > >
> > > Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code
> strangling their
>
Hello!
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
> BSD.
What is "iMimic's polymix"? I am almost sure, it is simply buggy
and was not _debugged_ under linux.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
> who has already done such work.
>
Hans,
exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
machines all of which have at least Linux+FreeBSD installed.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Nathan Dabney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > The above link contains some decent squid performance hints for 2.2+Squid.
> >
> > -Nathan Dabney
> It does not say anything about
> If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code, then reiserfs
> has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a pain to do.
I dont think raw network data helps. 2.2 and FreeBSD are basically the same
speed for raw networking in the general case. So if someone was
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Nathan Dabney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> > > 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends
James Lewis Nance wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> > implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
> >
> > They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
Nathan Dabney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> > 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> > networking code, so much better isn't
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
>
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
> is on BSD. Has the Linux 2.4
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:03:31 +0300
>
> Todd wrote:
> > hans,
> > we've found that the TCP and UDP performance on 2.4 is *dramatically*
> > better than 2.2.
[..]
> > i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Mar
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
>
>
Mar 2001 02:26:20 +0300
> > From: Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD?
> >
> > I have a client that wants to implement a webcache,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
networking code, so much better isn't necessarily good enough.
Hans
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:03:31 +0300
Todd wrote:
hans,
we've found that the TCP and UDP performance on 2.4 is *dramatically*
better than 2.2.
[..]
i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
is on BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking
Nathan Dabney wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
networking code, so much better isn't
James Lewis Nance wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it
is on
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
Nathan Dabney wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to
At 07:03 PM 1/03/2001 +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half
what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the Linux networking code
strangling their
webcache
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
who has already done such work.
Hans,
exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
machines all of which have at
Hello Hans,
Thursday, March 01, 2001, 7:26:20 AM, you wrote:
HR I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
HR implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
HR They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
HR BSD. Has the Linux 2.4
snip stuff about someone using linux for a web cache
Alan Cox wrote:
The extreme answer to the 2.4 networking performance is the tux specweb
benchmarks but they dont answer for all cases clearly.
However, I think you've hit the nail on the head here; much of tux is
just general-purpose
]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD?
>
> I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
>
> They know that iMimic's polymix performance
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the
PROTECTED]
Subject: What is 2.4 Linux networking performance like compared to BSD?
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the
36 matches
Mail list logo
