Date: 19 Jul 1999 16:46:16 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: obituary <c9710216@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem with cvsup Message-ID: <xzp7lnwn1dz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: obituary's message of "Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:18:05 %2B1000" References: <3791BFE4.D18901D3@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> <xzp3dymnm2b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <37931C99.7038563D@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> <xzpiu7gn6yd.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3793339D.297B21F3@atlas.newcastle.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
obituary <c9710216@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> writes: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Why are you using kernel pppd instead of userland ppp? > Why not? Is there some issue regarding kernel pppd that I'm not aware > of? I used kernel pppd simply because I assumed the kernel > implementation would be more efficient, and I'd had prior experience > using pppd (under Linux). Yes, in some cases you may save up to 1% CPU power using kernel PPP. On the other hand, userland PPP is actively maintained, whereas nobody's touched kernel PPP for over a year except to keep it in sync with architectural changes in the kernel. Userland PPP has builtin NAT based on libalias (which does all kinds of magic to make active FTP and the like work across NAT). It also has a much nicer configuration syntax (though that may be a matter of personal preference). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp7lnwn1dz.fsf>