Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!zdc-e!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 08:01:35 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 57 Message-ID: <31E106AF.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4qaui4$o5k@fido.asd.sgi.com> <4qc60n$d8m@verdi.nethelp.no> <31D2F0C6.167EB0E7@inuxs.att.com> <4rfkje$am5@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31DC8EBA.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4rqcsk$ff8@fido.asd.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:44393 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3968 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23070 Larry McVoy wrote: > I'll cop to the complaint John made that the tests don't show how the system > scales. There are several ways that I could improve things, such as > > . plot bandwidths & latencies as a function of the number of > tests running (scaling) and amount of data transfered (cache vs > memory). > > . Design benchmarks that are closer to what happens in real life > (I'm thinking mostly web stuff here - I need a benchmark that > connects, transfers a variable amount of data, and disconnects). > MUCH BETTER... > > Moving on: the comment John made about static Linux vs dynamic FreeBSD > libraries doesn't ring a bell with me. It's certainly not true for any > numbers I've published (like in the Usenix paper - that was all dynamic > on all systems that supported it, including Linux). > I have numbers that I am willing to send to you. See, I track the performance of FreeBSD very carefully. I find that lmbench is useful, but not a total measure of system performance. > You might take a look at how SGI hardware does > on lmbench and consider that I work for them, and that the numbers are > obviously unflattering. > I used to work on Tandem OEM'ed boxes using similar processors to SGI, and I know *exactly* what you are talking about. > > Finally getting to latencies et al. I think that everyone should print > out the two long messages from Linus in this thread. In over ten years > of working in the OS world, i have never seen a better treatment of > the issues. John needs to push that chip off his shoulder and listen > to what Linus is saying - it has nothing to about Linux vs FreeBSD; it > has everything to do with what makes sense for an OS, any OS. > Again, using terms like "chip on my shoulder" perpetuates the myth that I am somehow personally defective. Please refrain from personal comments... However, you are indeed supporting my position that the benchmark needs to measure something more "real world." Thank you. > TCP latency was in that > critical path as well. Linus EQUATED latency with quality. That is where alot of the problem was. I had brought up the notion that there are alot of other factors associated with quality, and the cheer about the no-load latency being so low was kind-of overblown. John