Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.internals:7610 comp.unix.solaris:21759 comp.unix.sys5.r4:8209 comp.unix.bsd:14719 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!concert!bigblue.oit.unc.edu!tipper.oit.unc.edu!ses From: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu (Simon E Spero) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: DLPI Vs BSD Sockets Vs Sys V TLI Date: 25 Aug 1994 22:50:57 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 23 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <33j78h$k50@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> References: <33ft3u$mn3@news.tamu.edu> <33iecq$leg@crl2.crl.com> <1994Aug25.165610.18709@noao.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tipper.oit.unc.edu In article <1994Aug25.165610.18709@noao.edu>, W. Richard Stevens <rstevens@noao.edu> wrote: >This misconception is continually posted, without one shred of evidence. >Have you ever benchmarked sockets versus TLI on Solaris? Has anyone? >How about just changing ttcp to use TLI instead of sockets and proving >or disproving this myth? While you're at it, why not access the stream I did some benchmarking on this under 2.3 a while back, and found out that it didn't make a lick of difference which one you used. So going through all the extra effort to work around that TLI brain-damage, you still don't gain anything. The only advantage to it is that versions of TLI before 2.2 were MT safe; however, 2.3 sockets with a couple of patches are fine with multi-threading, and under 2.4 they just fly. TLI is for people who think OSI session is a really neat idea. Simon -- I have heard the routers pinging, each to each. | Tel: +1-919-962-9107, I do not think that they will ping to me | Fax: +1-919-962-5604 The Love Song of J. Random Hacker | Email: ses@unc.edu