From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 19 7:49:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9FB151AC; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:49:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id QAA81210; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:46:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: obituary Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem with cvsup References: <3791BFE4.D18901D3@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> <37931C99.7038563D@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> <3793339D.297B21F3@atlas.newcastle.edu.au> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 19 Jul 1999 16:46:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: obituary's message of "Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:18:05 +1000" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG obituary 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