Perhaps they rely on the opinions of other OSes' developers -- many of
whom have borrowed FreeBSD TCP/IP code to bootstrap their own network
stacks. Of course, I think a number of factors contribute to this
without necessarily proving it is the technical "best":
* BSD Unix was first out the gate
. Most of the authors seem to agree
that while different OSes have their pros and cons, most seem to agree
that in terms of pure, network performance, no OS is better that
FreeBSD!
O.K., now you've got my curiosity...
1.) Do you agree?
2.) What makes the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack so much better a
Thanks Roland,
The books that I have refer to the "efficiency" of the stack.
Perhaps that's what the authors are referring to as you've referenced
being able to saturate a link with traffic and there's little, if any,
dropped packets?
Ed
___
freebsd-que
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:20:35AM -0700, Ed Flecko wrote:
> One of the common discussions of different OSes are their own
> implementations of the TCP/IP stack. Most of the authors seem to agree
> that while different OSes have their pros and cons, most seem to agree
> that in terms of pure, netwo
different OSes have their pros and cons, most seem to agree
that in terms of pure, network performance, no OS is better that
FreeBSD!
O.K., now you've got my curiosity...
1.) Do you agree?
2.) What makes the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack so much better and or
different than other OSes???
3.) Are
tack for Solaris that is meant to
> prepare customers for faster networking technology"
>
> "code-named Fire Engine - has 10 gigabit and 100 gigabit Ethernet networks
> in mind"
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33440.html <<
>
> Just out o
ot;code-named Fire Engine - has 10 gigabit and 100 gigabit Ethernet networks
in mind"
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33440.html <<
Just out of curiosity whets the maximum bandwidth/throughput the freebsd
tcp/ip stack can handle or is designed to handle? (I know it'll
