DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-02
Re: Backporting DFly patches to FreeBSD?
In a message dated 2/26/2005 1:40:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, Tom Hummel <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Could you please phrase your comments in the form of a sentence, so
>> we can understand what you're attempting to say.
>I admit, there's one "be" too much, id didn't notice.
>Speak for yourself, maybe there's some creature out there, which understood.
>My opinion on this matter is, that nobody needs comments which say:"but
>it has a habit of doing so at the expense of things that others would
>a) It would be practical if you'd explain which 'things' you are talking
>about and what makes them unacceptable in your opinion. Saying "few
>matters aren't good", is not helping anybody to understand your opinion,
>neither understand what maybe is wrong there.
>It is like saying:"Black is considered unacceptable".
>Reader:"What's so unacceptable about black?".
>b)If i would be aware of your concerns in detail, there's no need for me
>to read your statement. I wouldn't even be able to know if we are
>talking about the same thing. So the reader might think:"Yes, black is
>making my pets go upside down", while the sender infact means:"black is
>taking all the light from my rooms".
I believe I did qualify my point, here's what I wrote:
"Be careful how you define "better". Linux often appears
to the naked eye as being "faster", but it has a habit
of doing so at the expense of things that others would
consider unacceptable. Linux drops packets quite often
at 60% usage, while 'BSDs never do. Linux gives you the
negatives of device pplling even when you aren't device
polling, making it unsuitable, IMO, for high-end
networking. But its pretty good for gaming I hear."
Linux dropping packets is "the expense". While FreeBSD
will show 70% usage at 250K pps, linux might show 60%,
except linux is only actually processing 240K packets,
and its dropping the rest, which probably isn't what
most would want. Sorry if I wasn't clear.