From owner-freebsd-stable  Sun Apr  1 11:55:47 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.10])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6040D37B719
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Sun,  1 Apr 2001 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from tom@uniserve.com)
Received: from mail2.uniserve.com ([204.244.156.10])
	by mail2.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 14jn0n-000AAh-00; Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:55:41 -0700
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
X-Sender: tom@athena.uniserve.ca
To: "Jason T. Luttgens" <lucky@lansters.com>
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Network performance question
In-Reply-To: <000001c0bac3$d6027c10$0200010a@lucky>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10104011153100.4578-100000@athena.uniserve.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Jason T. Luttgens wrote:

> packets/second. I have another computer that is multi-boot where I do a
> tcpdump to listen to the packets on the network and write them to a file
> (tcpdump -n -w test)
...
> Now maybe this method of testing is not proper, or there is something on the
> FreeBSD box I can tweak - but at this point, I'm inclined to think that
> Linux 2.4.3 handles high network loads better than FreeBSD. Can someone
> comment on this?

  Running a network card in promiscious mode is rather atypical.  So I
would say, yes, your testing methodology isn't really testing high network
load.  You are testing your NIC and NIC drivers ability to run in
promiscious mode only.  None of that traffic is even going to the IP/TCP
layer of the OS.

> Thanks,
> Jason

Tom


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message