Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:14:14PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> >[ .. ] 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 [ ... ]
>
> 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.
I would be _extremely_ surprised if registry entries were
not tweaked in the NT case as part of the InstallShield
installation.
In other words, it's a lack of software layering, and the
installation of everything by default that somewhat hamper
FreeBSD's ability to automatically tune itself better, on
top of some early architectural decisions that are coming
back to bite us now.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
