Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:33:31 +0000 () From: Joao Daniel Togni <jdt@genesis.ximango.com.br> To: "Graydon Hoare ()" <admin@multinet.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a PPP server Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961003123127.2072B-100000@genesis> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961003095315.20647A-100000@house.multinet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Graydon Hoare () wrote: > On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Peter Childs wrote: > > > In article <52uk4s$hms@al.imforei.apana.org.au> you wrote: > > > > : 2. Is there a real difference between user-mode ppp (iijppp?) and > > : kernel-mode WRT performance? I would think it would, especially as you > > : add more serial ports. > > > > I guess so... The userland ppp code is quite slick but i haven't used > > the kernel land stuff. > > I can't argue with the case for uptime, but have you measured the data rate > your clients are capable of using user mode PPP? I have no experience in this > department cause there were already netblazers when I got here, but I'm > hazarding a guess that it will frustrate users to have high-priority system > management tasks taking user-mode runtime away from their traffic. Doesn't > it make better sense for Syslog, radiusd and getty to be scheduled around the > packet flow, not in with it? I mean, bearing in mind that TCP has pretty > hefty acknowledge cycles, and a "little delay" in the last mile can cut the > effective throughput dramatically... Check it out, Unless the user code is > vastly superior (and here again I profess ignorance. I haven't read it, and > am not smart enough to know one way or another even if I had ;) I'll bet a > carefully configured PPP-server-kernel will give you much nicer results. > PPP is better than SLIP? Faster? Thanks, Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961003123127.2072B-100000>