Geoff Mulligan <mulligan @
future .
Eng .
Sun .
COM> writes:
# Is there a reason that you must run screend and not an alternative that
# provides equal functionality without the overhead of screend's context
# switches from kernel to user space.
Such as?
And what difference does it make anyway, since screend on a 486 is
fast enough to keep up with a T1 line? I mean, yeah, there's the
architectural purity point of "oh, yuck, you mean it has to dip down
into user space for every packet?", but as long as it's fast _enough_,
who cares?
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about
Brent @
GreatCircle .
COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security
+1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates
Follow-Ups:
|
|
