From owner-freebsd-net Thu Mar 22 22:24:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lysimachus.hosting.swbell.net (lysimachus.hosting.swbell.net [216.100.98.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E75337B719 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:24:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alc@imimic.com) Received: from imimic.com (adsl-216-63-78-19.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [216.63.78.19]) by lysimachus.hosting.swbell.net id BAA10606; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 01:24:10 -0500 (EST) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.7] Message-ID: <3ABAEC0A.994C6D2C@imimic.com> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:24:10 -0600 From: "Alan L. Cox" Organization: iMimic Networking, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jlemon@flugsvamp.com, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Note that iMimic claims to run on a standard FreeBSD platform, which > would also imply they use kqueue; this alone can probably provide the > 2x performance boost you see on polygraph. Yes, we do. In fact, the difference between FreeBSD and Linux is greater than 2x. On equivalent processors, we demonstrated 1900 polygraph req/sec on FreeBSD 4.2 and 720 polygraph req/sec on a 2.2.14 Linux kernel. It's also worth mentioning that the response time for FreeBSD at 1900 req/sec was faster than Linux at 720 req/sec. There are other advantages to FreeBSD, but kqueue is definitely at the top of the list. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message