From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dean Prichard To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030206132316.C66103-100000@fbsd.acl.lanl.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:36:07 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52c7454a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Last time i ran tests (after Presotto fixes) if i recall correctly plan9 was very close to FreeBSD on netpipe tcp performance on 100BT, and that is preety amazing in my book as the plan9 tcp code is a lot smaller and cleaner than FreeBSD's. GigE performance was not so good, probably because of the lack of window scale option. On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:17:26 -0700 (MST) > From: Ronald G. Minnich > Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu > To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu > Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, David Presotto wrote: > > > I was under the impression that Dong and I had fixed the TCP problems LANL was > > having. Is this incorrect? Could you tell me what's still slow? I really > > do want our IP stack to stay competative. Our next move is to take advantage > > of the hardware checksuming on the gigabit boards since, in our most recent > > testing, we seem to differ from BSD speeds most because of that. > > David, thanks for the note, and once I manage to stand some Plan 9 nodes > back up, we'll try it again. Sorry I am being so non-specific. > > ron > > >