Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:28:19 -0800 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "Peter Losher" <Peter_Losher@isc.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UDP performance. Message-ID: <b1fa29170703010128k485313b1n3fd5d36f9dfea701@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45E54619.7000503@isc.org> References: <20070224215508.GA41968@xor.obsecurity.org> <45E13410.7020505@he.iki.fi> <20070225071946.GA48242@xor.obsecurity.org> <45E14BAD.80909@he.iki.fi> <20070225084737.GA49231@xor.obsecurity.org> <errjlr$a8p$1@sea.gmane.org> <5a0a9d6f0702260936u3408f8d8rd4cde9234b2f7776@mail.gmail.com> <erv88p$rag$1@sea.gmane.org> <45E54619.7000503@isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the > same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running > BIND 9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we slammed a query stream > to. On a single threaded BIND, there was a 20% advantage to Linux, on a > multi threaded build, Linux trounced FreeBSD (39k to 89k queries/sec) > > There's also been other analysis done by Marcelo Amarai @ Registro.br > that was posted to freebsd-net back last September. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-September/011748.html>; I have a couple of dual Woodcrests running back-to-back over multiple 10GigE cards that I'd like to do performance testing with. Did you use the same testing methodology as Marcelo? If not can you go into more detail on your setup and how to reproduce? -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170703010128k485313b1n3fd5d36f9dfea701>