> That Microsoft demonstrated that wiring down interrupts
> to a particular CPU was a good idea, and kicked both Linux'
> and FreeBSD's butt in the test at ZD Labs?
No, Terry, this is not what was demonstrated by those tests. Will this
myth never die? Do Mike and I have to write up a nice white paper? :)
The environment was ridigly specified: quad cpu box, four eepro 100mb
interfaces, and a _heavy_ load of short lived connections fetching static
cached content. The test was clearly designed to stress concurrency in
the network stack, with heavy low latency interrupt load. Neither Linux
nor FreeBSD could do this well at the time. There was a service pack
issed a few months before the test that 'threaded' NT's stack..
It was not a mistake that the rules of the tests forbid doing the sane
thing and running on a system with a single very fast cpu, lots of mem,
and gigabit interface with an actual published interface for coalescing
interrupts. That would have performed better and been cheaper.
Thats what pisses me off about the tests to this day. The problem people
are faced with is is "how do I serve this static content reliably and
cheaply", not, "what OS should I serve my content with, now that I've
bought this ridiculous machine?". Its sad that people consistently
insist on drawing insane conclusions from these benchmark events.
--
zach
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
