Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:42:44 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Real "technical comparison" Message-ID: <3B15F5F4.68A83EFC@DougBarton.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105301555430.12540-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > 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". > > > I would suggest a better test would be to open _at least_ > > 250,000 connections to a server Depends on your environment. I've had freebsd 4.x machines with 125k active connections from real http users. The load average was up around 30, and the pty response was a little slow, but the user experience was just as snappy as you'd like, thank you very much. FreeBSD frequently leads the industry in most connections per machine. Back in '96 I held the record across all IRC networks for most concurrent connections for 8 months, peaking at 5,300. We would have had more, except our ircd sucked. :) Using my config and a vastly improved ircd they blew by me on efnet with first 8k, then 10k before the bandwidth cost got to be too much. My point is, you never push the limits unless you push the limits. :) 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?3B15F5F4.68A83EFC>