On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> It's certainly true that a greater degree of dynamic tuning could be
> done, but all this benchmark proves (in regards to the TCP results)
> is that FreeBSD puts its foot down earlier then other OS's in regards
> to how much it is willing to dedicate to the network. In a real life
> situation where you may be running a multi-user load or a large database,
> the very last thing you want to do is shift every last bit of your
> resources away from the users or the database and to the network when
> an 'unexpected load' comes in (unexpected meaning something that is a
> factor of 100 or 1000x what the machine normally handles). The
> truth of the matter is that no amount of dynamic tuning can handle
> every situation... at some point you have to manually tune the box.
> FreeBSD does exactly the right thing on an untuned box by capping the
> network resources. If the authors want to run the machine into the
> ground with a benchmark, they have to tune the machine properly to handle
> the load because FreeBSD anyway is more interested in keeping the
> integrity of the machine as a whole together then it is tuning itself
> to match some idiot who thinks he is gods own gift to humanity running
> a benchmark.
This is the best written paragraph on the issue in this entire thread.
This is exactly my philosophy toward the whole thing. And I can tell you from
previous dealings with companies that use FreeBSD as their main platform that
this is one of the main reasons why.
> -Matt
Regards,
--
Bosko Milekic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
