Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!ralf
From: ralf@bj-ig.de (Ralf Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD
Date: 22 Jan 1997 19:40:55 GMT
Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=FCckner?= & Jarosch Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <slrn5ecrab.2ff.ralf@Ralf.bj-ig.de>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5c341j$3dp@cynic.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ralf.bj-ig.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.1.0 BETA UNIX)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:153590 comp.os.linux.networking:65740 comp.os.linux.setup:93330 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5678 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1968
On 21 Jan 1997 11:05:23 -0800, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote:
>In article <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>>J.C. Archambeau (jca@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote:
>>]preferrential to BSD. It also seems the FreeBSD is more solid that
>>]Linux in the networking department.
>>
>> I see this claim now and then. Can you post some specific data, comparing
>> Linux and BSD networking ?
>
>I see this claim regularly to, and I recently tried to investigate
>it. Unfortunately, I have found only one Linux user who is willing
>to give me any statistics on NFS performance, and his network and
>server were heavily loaded.
No problem, all tests with no load on the net:
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
R local 100 2396 82.3 3205 18.1 1616 17.4 2058 76.4 3674 15.6 31.7 1.6
100 2637 90.4 3150 17.8 1661 18.1 2304 85.3 3774 15.3 33.2 1.7
(1) 100 3345 62.4 3168 18.2 1573 16.9 3209 55.6 4026 18.5 32.5 1.5
P local 50 2571 86.7 2947 15.3 1338 13.6 1954 70.2 3242 13.4 42.0 1.6
T local 100 2519 95.5 4347 29.0 2020 27.0 2338 91.6 4956 28.7 40.4 5.4
R NFS T 100 536 29.6 610 17.0 338 13.4 714 36.7 855 8.8 31.5 5.5
P NFS T 100 533 21.0 635 7.3 341 7.4 733 32.7 864 6.1 30.1 3.0
(2) 100 369 16.8 418 8.9 201 7.6 371 16.9 421 7.5 25.9 5.5
R - P133 Linux 2.0.28
Netcard: SMC Ultra
Hard Disk: IBM DORS-32160 Rev: S84A
SCSI: AHA-2940 Ultra (PCI-bus)
Distribution: SuSE 4.2
P - P133 Linux 2.0.27
Sorry there was no space left ... so the test file was only 50MB
Netcard: 3Com 3C590 10bT (rev 0) Vortex
Hard Disk: QUANTUM BIGFOOT2550A
IDE: i82371 PIIX (Triton) Bus Master DMA
Distribution: SuSE 4.4
T - P133 Linux 2.0.27
Netcard: 3Com 3C590 10bT (rev 0) Vortex
Hard Disk: IBM DORS-32160 Rev: WA6A
SCSI: scsi-ncr53c7,8xx : NCR53c810
Distribution: SuSE 4.4
NFS via 10MBit Ethernet
default: bonnie compiled with gcc and no optimizations
NFS block size 4k
(1) bonnie optimized with "gcc -O2"
(2) NFS block size 1k
Bye Ralf
--
Ralf Müller e-mail: ralf@bj-ig.de
voice : +49=361-4223600
______________________________________________________________________
Van Roy's Law:
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.