--- Dmitri Nikulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- Matthew Dillon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > :Uh, how do you get that? Clustering > implies > > > :networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated > > > that > > > :he doesn't really care about network > > > performance. > > > : > > > :And clustering implies servers, which Matt > has > > > :recently and repeatedly stated aren't his > > > focal > > > :point. I don't see how you can have one as > a > > > goal > > > :and not the other. Clustering required > hightly > > > :efficient networking first and foremost. > > > : > > > :DT > > > > > > Er, I said no such thing. You > apparently > > > did not read my > > > posting(s) very carefully. > > > > You said you only wanted "very good > networking" > > and that if you wanted to push traffic at the > > bleeding edge you should get dedicated > hardware > > solutions from cisco. > > > > You know optimizing networking isn't such a > bad > > thing. You can have your cake and eat it too. > > Having stellar networking performance will > not > > hurt your project, nor is it a "waste of > time". > > It would make your OS much more attractive to > a > > much wider user base. Even Intel gave in and > > decided to build a CPU to win the benchmarks. > > People want the best. No-one is going to > notice > > if you're 3rd best, but everyone will notice > if > > you're #1. > > People use Linux and it's far from the best in > security, stability and > for many cases even performance. They use it > because it does a lot and > is marketable. Done. Quality doesn't matter > otherwise it would never > have left the garage. > > Even so, optimizing every last possible drop > from the network stack is > *not* compatible with the goals of this > project. For example, if you > understand the LWKT system and Matt's > presentation/emails regarding > the way socket threads are distributed on > multi-processor systems, > you'll note that they're split by port and > bound to that CPU for their > lifetime. This means that load balancing is not > as optimal as > possible, since actual load is not factored in. > However, work > aggregation is a lot more successful, because > migrations are costly. > Also, the system itself is near lockless and, > as far as localised > network stacks go, impressively optimal > already. > > Since getting proper load balancing of the > threads in would be counter > to DragonFly's very architecture, and since > that optimization itself > has significant downsides and can actually make > a pitifully small > positive difference, there's no point > optimizing to that extreme. This > is an example, I'm sure Matt could conjure many > more cases where the > extra optimization just isn't worth it, but he > has better things to > do. > > I don't know about "stellar" here. Let's wait > until more of the kernel > is MPSAFE, including the network stack, and do > a bench set against a > few instances of FreeBSD and Linux. I'd be more > than happy to try it > out, I've got some em (Intel gigabit) cards and > an X2 4400+ and that's > a nice start. You can try it on your millions > of dollars worth of 10GE > machines. Contribute to the project! You have > money and obviously a > lot of spare time, so help the project out > instead of insulting its > developers. That'll be a good deed and you may > realise just how great > this community is when you're not perceived as > an ass bandit. > > -- Dmitri Nikulin > It seems to me, that if your "methods" are sound, that you should be able to beat FreeBsd and linux. Why is that not a worthy goal? FreeBSD 4.x with 1 processor beats linux with 2 by a wide margine. How difficult can it be to simply be better with 2 processors than Freebsd 4.x is with one? Thats really the only criteria for getting past the wall. we all know that freebsd 5.x+ sucks. being better than that shouldnt be something to reject. Dt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com