From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jul 14 19:11:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED28914BCE for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:11:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13915; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:10:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd013904; Wed Jul 14 19:10:12 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA11380; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:10:11 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199907150210.TAA11380@usr07.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Known MMAP() race conditions ... ? To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:10:11 +0000 (GMT) Cc: Doug@gorean.org, tlambert@primenet.com, scrappy@hub.org, beyssac@enst.fr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <000001bece24$65a5c5e0$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Jul 14, 99 11:12:13 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Large RAID arrays. You mean software RAID, right? SCSI cables don't care what they are connected to. Hmmm. I could do a SCSI commercial: "So you want a RAID array? Well, at RAID-arrays-R-us, they do RAID the way you like it. But bring your SCSI card, because they don't do untagged commands, and they don't accept IDE... SCSI: It's everywhere you want your data to be" > 4-way SMP. We know this one. 8-). > Applications requiring large numbers of threads. Balk. "Rodents of unusual size? I don't believe they exist...". > There's nothing I know of in any UNIX that comes close to NT's > completion ports for efficient network I/O. I want whatever you're smoking confiscated. Completion ports are no more, and no less, than VMS AST's. Just like aio* in FreeBSD, and much of the POSIX crap that's passing for standards these days. They may make it easier to code, by calling your callbacks, but the idea that network buffers should be in user space instead of on the kernel side of the protection domain barrier is just plain nuts. > I won't bother listing NT's problems -- we all know them. But it doesn't do > us any good to ignore its strengths. The anti-NT sentiment wasn't mine. On equivalent hardware, it handily beats FreeBSD's SMB server performance (one of the major impetus' for the work Kirk is now doing). I've address some of that in another posting, from my experience optimizing a similar hosted server for NetWare on Solaris, UnixWare, Dell UNIX, VMS, and AIX. The problems are correctable, but require work to be done, and code to be committed. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message