Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:48:39 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za> To: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein) Cc: dr@kyx.net (Dragos Ruiu), tcpdump-workers@tcpdump.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, winpcap@netgroup-serv.polito.it Subject: Re: Fwd: kyxtech: freebsd outsniffed by wintendo !!?!? Message-ID: <200012080648.eB86md171647@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20001207215142.H16205@fw.wintelcom.net> from Alfred Perlstein at "Dec 7, 2000 09:51:42 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > (Hurm.... Wintendo outperforming unix???!?? Something's > > improper about this, and it ought to be fixed... :-) > > Comments? Other OS numbers: more recent > > FreeBSD versions? Solaris? Tru64? Optimization > > patches? Can those OO MSDN lobotomies actually > > be good things? Hurm... The Italian gauntlet has > > been thrown down.... --dr :-) > > > > url: http://netgroup-serv.polito.it/winpcap/docs/performance.htm > > I'm looking at this, FreeBSD seems to better on all accounts except > writing the packets to disk. > > Can any of the winpcap people explain exactly how they measured > the disk performance? > ... > Honestly, it really looks like the fault lies with the way tcpdump > writes to disk and not with FreeBSD. What I couldn't figure out from the url was if they were using dma for the disk. Maybe they were using it on Windows and not on FreeBSD? (On FreeBSD 3 you have to enable it with flags in the kernel config file.) Also they don't say if they have changed the debug.bpf_bufsize sysctl from its default smallish 4096 bytes. Those 2 things can make a huge difference. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za 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?200012080648.eB86md171647>