Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:55:18 -0800
From:      "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
To:        <danial_thom@yahoo.com>, "Drew Tomlinson" <drew@mykitchentable.net>
Cc:        Michael Vince <mv@roq.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
Message-ID:  <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEADFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051212213437.52457.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Danial Thom [mailto:danial_thom@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:35 PM
>To: Drew Tomlinson; Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Michael Vince; danial_thom@yahoo.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
>Kris Kennaway
>Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme
>Song)
>
>
>
>
>--- Drew Tomlinson <drew@mykitchentable.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>

> >Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main
> >ram section of
> >things, not in the ethernet driver code.

>I don't think I'm claiming that at all.

Oh, really, do tell then:

>The
>slowness is in the latency and inefficiencies of
>the scheduler and whatever other kernel "stuff"
>(locking, general overheads).

Which runs in main ram...

>The entire point of
>the tests are that the managing of the packets is
>a constant, in that its the same hardware and
>mostly the same code.

What I said...

>Now I suppose its possible
>that the em driver could just be slower in 5.4
>and 6.0, but the code is fundamentally the same,
>so it should be a constant. So since the
>processing of the packets is a constant, then if
>you can process less packets on the same machine
>the overhead of the OS must be the culprit.

And, where again does the OS do it's processing...

>It
>could be the code,

Well, if it's not, then your explanation and everything
you have said up to this point sure strongly implies it.

What's wrong Danial, now that you have actually had to
think about it, now realizing you have some holes in
your bitching?  Scared that I'm about ready to start
punching holes in your flimsy inferences?

Danial, you spewed some accusations about the core
team making FreeBSD's network performance slower in the
newer versions.  As I said before, you haven't posted
anything to back this up.  I know you think your misunderstood
but you fail to realize we all understand what your bitching
about very well, and are waiting for you to put your money
where your mouth is and start posting some repeatable tests.

Until then, your just puffing air.

And that goes for the rest of you claiming that the later
versions of FreeBSD's network performance are better.  You
too are puffing air.

Start showing some test results or go away.

Ted




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEADFDAA.tedm>