Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:41:31 +1030 From: Richard Sharpe <sharpe@ns.aus.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: FreeBSD might not have been slower that Linux in the real world ... Message-ID: <3C0D5823.8040107@ns.aus.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, As you might have seen, there was a problem in the FreeBSD code that Matt Dillon fixed recently. This problem involved the flag TCP_NODELAY not being propogated across an accept() call. This resulted in tbench runs turning in very poor performance under FreeBSD compared with Linux. However, in the real world, ie in Samba, this might not have been a problem at all. I believe, but will not be able to check for a little while now, that Samba was doing the setsockopt() call after the accept() call, and indeed, after the fork() call when a new smbd is fork'd to handle the new connection. Since TCP_NODELAY is the default, Samba under FreeBSD was probably always getting the benefit of that 68Mb/s that it seems possible to get using the SMB protocol on a 100Mb/s link. However, it is good that FreeBSD also gets good numbers under the benchmarks. -- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe@ns.aus.com, LPIC-1 www.samba.org, www.ethereal.com, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours, Special Edition, Using Samba 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?3C0D5823.8040107>