Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:32:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Real "technical comparison" Message-ID: <3B14A1FE.89C32156@mindspring.com> References: <20010523091210.S87127-100000@nausicaa.mitre.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This "postmark" test is useless self flagellation. The intent of the "test" is obviously intended to show certain facts which we all know to be self-evident under strange load conditions which are patently "unreal". We already knew the limitations on putting many files in a directory; the only useful thing you could do with that many files in a single directory is to iterate them all. If the application were trying to "remember" 60,000 path names, we are talking about 60MB of RAM, just for the potential top end path data alone, not including the linked list pointers for a simple linked list approach. I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_ 250,000 connections to a server running under both FreeBSD and Linux. I was able to do this without breaking a sweat on a correctly configured FreeBSD 4.3 system. Even if all the clients were simultaneously active, on a single Gigabit NIC, that's still in excess of 4 kilobits a second per client. This could easily be the case with, for example, a pager network or other content broadcasting system, or an EAI tool, such as IBM's MQ-Series. It seems to me that this would be a much more real-world scenario than some badly written third party code acting in the worst possible way with FS contents. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B14A1FE.89C32156>