Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:46:22 -0800 (PST) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.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: <20051213184622.19320.qmail@web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEADFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > > > >-----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? > Not really, because its still a FreeBSD release, so whether its the driver or the scheduler or the code generated by the compiler, it still substantially worse than FreeBSD 4.x. And MP is SLOWER than UP for many functions. So specifically WHAT it is doesn't change my claim the FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x suck, at least relative to what you started with. If you take something and make it worse, and seem to have no ability to figure out WHY, then you're incompetent. Its as simple as that. I have posted a reasonable test and results, and there are countless complaints about performance. I think the fact that every time someone complains Robert Watson tells them to "wait for 6.0, or wait for 7.0" is a pretty good indication that things aren't what the Teds and Krises claim. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051213184622.19320.qmail>