>> FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD etc has proven to generally be reliablein
>> high-stress conditions, but isn't quite as easy to setup.
>>
>
>I think you may be thinking back to the time (a couple of years ago) when
>it was quite popular to spout that BSD had more efficient networking.
>Those days are long gone as I am sure anyone using both would be happy to
>explain.
rather than explain, please cite the best performance figures
that you know of for any version of Linux.
here they are regarding FreeBSD
200 GB of data per day (average)
228 GB per day (highest single day to date)
kryten: {3} ftp ftp.cdrom.com
Connected to wcarchive.cdrom.com.
220 wcarchive.cdrom.com FTP server (Version DG-2.0.7 Wed Oct 22 02:30:03 PDT
1997) ready.
Name (ftp.cdrom.com:jmb): ftp
331 Guest login ok, send your complete e-mail address as password.
Password:
230-Welcome to wcarchive - home ftp site for Walnut Creek CDROM.
230-There are currently 1556 users out of 2750 possible.
[snip]
230-This machine is a 200MHz P6 with 1GB of memory & 142GB of disk online.
230-The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of
230-FreeBSD, see the pub/FreeBSD directory, visit http://www.freebsd.org or
230-mail to info @
FreeBSD .
org for more information. FreeBSD on CDROM can be
230-ordered using the WEB at http://www.cdrom.com/titles/os/freebsd.htm or by
230-sending email to orders @
cdrom .
com .
[snip]
>I am not trying to start the ever-famous Linux-BSD OS war again. I am
>just stating that this answer was clearly uninformed as linux networking
>has changed significantly since the time when you must have read some post
>concerning it 2 years or more ago.
hmmmm.....
jmb
References:
|
|
