I have been told by multiple software venders (and from sun) that solaris
does not have a multi-threaded TCP/IP stack, therefor if your software
spends almost all it's time in the stack (router/firewall/load
balancing/other low level stuff) buying a SMP box gains you very little
performance. I tend to believe this as these are the folks who would be
selling the more expensive SMP box if it was better :-)
As noted in another messaeg Linux changed from this model in 2.3 so when
2.4 is finally released it will gain significantly in high traffic
situations.
David Lang
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:01:43 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
> Cc: Stephen Torri <s.torri@lancaster.ac.uk>,
> Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Multithreaded TCP/IP stack
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:47:08PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen Torri wrote:
> >
> > > A friend of mine is critical of linux for not having a
> > > multithreaded TCP/IP stack. Is that true? If it is not then
> > > what kernel version introduced it. If it is then when should we
> > > expect to see it?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> >
> > This is cute. Could you ask your friend what a multi-threaded
> > TCP/IP stack is?
> >
> > His friend probably refers to the locking used by the stack and how
> > much concurrency you'll get with multiple processors.
> >
> > With 2.2.x most of the stack is under a single lock, with 2.4.x
> > locking will be such that multiple processors can be in the stack at
> > the same time (the performance should be much greater then under high
> > load on big SMP boxes).
> >
>
> I have heard over-and-over again by the M$ trained groupies how
> M$ is so much better than Linux. This lie exists with any closed-
> source. Sun used to say much the same thing until they got smart
> and learned from Linux, then actively supported it because it
> makes their machines run better.
>
> M$ actually stated several years ago, they they didn't need to use
> spin-locks in SMP machines because they invented a special mechanism which
> nobody else can use. This means that M$ will always be "superior" because
> it doesn't need to use "inferior" spin-locks. I think the "invention" was
> to used the second CPU as a heater.
>
>
> The lies go on.
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
>
> Penguin : Linux version 2.2.15 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
>
> "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
> course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
> obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST