Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!news From: torvalds@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: 16 Jul 1996 21:47:49 +0300 Organization: A Red Hat Commercial Linux Site Lines: 61 Message-ID: <4sgo4l$ucf@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <31E80ACA.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> <4sadde$qsv@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31EA9FBC.41C67EA6@star-gate.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: linux.cs.helsinki.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45499 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4088 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23798 [ This has no technical issues left. Don't bother following up: reply to this by email if you must, as I will try to leave this thread - it's not worth continuing ] In article <31EA9FBC.41C67EA6@star-gate.com>, Amancio Hasty Jr. <hasty@star-gate.com> wrote: > >May I ask in which point do you think that Dyson is lying? 8) I assume the above question was rhetorical and meant to be a joke. In case you really _are_ serious about the question, Johns posting certainly seemed to imply that Linux is special-casing something for better numbers on lmbench, and that (rather strongly, IMHO) implied claim was what I reacted to. I seem not to be the only one who saw that implication, so I'm not overly worried about being paranoid here. John has later stated that he did not mean to imply anything such at all, and as such I can only say that there seems to have just been a misunderstanding. Sadly John stated a lot of other things in that "corrective" posting too. I'm sure you can find that posting yourself and make your own judgement on the matter. I'm not really intersted in hearing about it, though. >>beat you on system call latency (and I have to admit that I haven't even >>looked at the FreeBSD numbers, so I'm just assuming that from your post > >If anyone needs to calm down around here is you, *linus*. Please >don't assume either ask for the numbers or get them yourselves. Oh, my assumptions are generally pretty safe assumptions. In the specific case of the system call latency numbers, I'm pretty confident that Linux is faster than just about anybody else. If you find numbers to the opposite, I'd be interested in seeing them. As you can see from other numbers posted to the thread, Linux is about 3-4 times faster than FreeBSD on that particular test, so my assumption certainly wasn't uncalled for. And FreeBSD isn't doing especially badly on that benchmark, Linux just happens to excel at it.. Now, the factor of 3-4 doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, and it has been claimed that some of the overhead of FreeBSD is the VFS overhead. Linux just seems to handle that same overhead a lot better, and WITHOUT needing to special case anything at all. >until is not proven out in the field with your new networking >code is just a little experiment in your box which we still >don't know its configuration nor its OS version -- very very >subtle, linus 8) Umm. You haven't followed this discussion at all, have you, Amancio? Go back and read a few more posts. You'll find that most of the numbers shown haven't been posted by me at all, and you'll also find that we're talking about a stable release, not some "little experiment in my box". We're not even talking Linux-Current in FreeBSD terms, we're talking Linux-Stable, for chrissake! Do you talk about XFree86-3.1.2 as your "little experiment"? Why is it you have to resort to insinuations like the above? Linus