Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!cunews!not-for-mail From: shaver@neon.ingenia.com (Mike Shaver) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Followup-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 13 Jul 1996 20:10:18 GMT Organization: Slacker Software Services Lines: 84 Message-ID: <4s8vra$6ti@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <x7687w1dsr.fsf@oberon.di.fc.ul.pt> <4s220u$nmq@symiserver2.symantec.com> <31E53C2B.41C67EA6@inuxs.att.com> <4s6k8o$4o0@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> <31E6FD92.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8cuq$ljd@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <31E7C0DD.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: neon.ingenia.com X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45119 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4028 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23496 John S. Dyson (toor@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: : Mike Shaver wrote: : > John S. Dyson (toor@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: : > : He made a claim that BSD networking is not as fast as Linux, specifically : > : using the no-load latency figure. : > : > He posted numbers to back up his claim that a given Linux was faster : > than a given *BSD under a given load state on given hardware. : : Yes I am disputing the fact, the fact is that he had said that the : TCP latency is faster. Bzzt, that is the wrong conclusion. The : TCP latency under NO LOAD is faster. Please re-read that. It sounds suspiciously like we agree here. =) We're talking about no-load latency. That has _never_ been disputed. If you want to say that the performance characteristics of the systems are different under load, then you have been repeatedly (and enthusiastically =) ) invited to produce some benchmarks that demonstrate this. I'm not saying that you're _wrong_, I'm saying that you haven't given me any reason to believe you. The only benchmark that's been presented here has demonstrated that, under certain circumstances, Linux outperforms *BSD. However narrow and irrelevant you feel that benchmark is, it's still the _only_ set of numbers we have. (You might ask, quite reasonably, why you should give me that reason. It appears to me from this discussion that you are _very_ interested in having people believe you. =) ) : Most people don't understand : the difference, but one claim is accurate, and the other is NOT. Provably NOT? (Not provably so, perhaps, but no-one is asserting that it is.) : The point is being missed, and this is why either Linus either doesn't : know the scalability issues, or he is disinforming. The issue is that : when most people who use the OS see the latency problem, it is when the : systems are under heavy load, and the latency that was measured by lat_tcp : is pretty much meaningless. : The only arrogance that I have seen is that certain people are trying : to pass off benchmark results with bogus conclusions. I refer you to your earlier post in which you dismiss lat_tcps no-load latency measurements as something that most FreeBSD users don't consider meaningful. I've reread most of this thread, and can't find _anyone_ asserting that the lat_tcp numbers are proof of anything other than no-load latency. I'd love a reference if you've got one. : I am being : skeptical because of the continued INCORRECT conclusions given the : benchmark results presented. (Psst, they are misinforming you and : I am trying to protect you from that...) Thanks. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? : How can it POSSIBLY show ANYTHING but NO-LOAD latency? It _can't_. Luckily for the forces of Truth, Justice and the TCP Way, no-one is assering otherwise. : If a claim is made other than NO-LOAD latency, then someone is trying to : pull the wool over your eyes... Sure. Great. Was such a claim being made? You were asserting that loaded latency was more meaningful, but I think that's the only reference to loaded latency I can think of. Some Linux people probably think that our loaded latency is better, too, but apparently some *BSD people think the opposite. Since there are no numbers being presented, we'll never know. Mike -- #> Mike Shaver (shaver@ingenia.com) Ingenia Communications Corporation <# #> Chief System Architect -- Head geek -- System exorcist <# #> <# #> "Have you considered a life? I hear they're quite affordable <# #> these days." --- shields@tembel.org <#