RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:chrcolukgmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:45 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Sam Leffler; freebsd-performancefreebsd.org; Oliver Herold; Kris
> Kennaway; freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
> 

> A weakness of freebsd is its fussyness over hardware in
particular
> network cards, time and time again I see posts here
telling people to
> go out buying expensive intel pro 1000 cards just so
they can use the
> operating system properly when I think its reasonable
to expect
> mainstream hardware to work, eg. realtek is mainstream
and common as a
> onboard nic but the support in freebsd is poor and only
serving
> datacentres to shy away from freebsd.  If the same
hardware performs
> better in linux then the hardware isnt to blame for
worser performance
> in fbsd.
> 

Device drivers and hardware are a cooperative effort.  The
ideal
is a well-written device driver and well-designed hardware.
Unfortunately the reality of it appears to be that it costs
a LOT more money to hire good silicon designers than it
costs
to hire good programmers - so a depressing amount of
computer
hardware out there is very poor hardware, but the
hardware's
shortcomings are made up by almost Herculean efforts of the
software developers.

I should have thought the invention of the Winmodem
(windows-only
modem) would have made this obvious to the general public
years ago.

Unfortunately, the hardware vendors make a lot of effort to
conceal the crappiness of their designs and most customers
just care if the device works, they don't care if the only
way the device can work is if 60% of their system's CPU is
tied up servicing a device driver that is making up for
hardware shortcomings, so it is still rather difficult
for a customer to become informed about what is good and
what isn't - other than trial and error.

I hardly think that the example I cited - the 3com 3c905
PCI
network adapter - is an example of poor support in FreeBSD.
The FreeBSD driver for the 509 worked perfectly well when
the 309 used a Lucent-built ASIC.  When 3com decided to
save 50 cents a card by switching to Broadcom for the
ASIC manufacturing, the FreeBSD driver didn't work very
well with those cards - nor did the Linux driver for that
matter.  This clearly wasn't a driver problem it was a
problem with Broadcom not following 3com's design specs
properly.  3com did the only thing they could - which
was to put a hack into the Windows driver - but of course,
nobody bothered telling the Linux or FreeBSD community
about it, we had to find out by dicking around with the
driver code.

If datacenters want to purchase poor hardware and run their
stuff on it, that's their choice.  Just because a piece
of hardware is "mainstream" doesen't mean it's
good.  It
mainly means it's inexpensive.

Ted
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performancefreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-p
erformance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-performance-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On 29/02/2008, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedmtoybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>

>
> Device drivers and hardware are a cooperative effort. 
The ideal
> is a well-written device driver and well-designed
hardware.
> Unfortunately the reality of it appears to be that it
costs
> a LOT more money to hire good silicon designers than it
costs
> to hire good programmers - so a depressing amount of
computer
> hardware out there is very poor hardware, but the
hardware's
> shortcomings are made up by almost Herculean efforts of
the
> software developers.
>
> I should have thought the invention of the Winmodem
(windows-only
> modem) would have made this obvious to the general
public
> years ago.
>
> Unfortunately, the hardware vendors make a lot of
effort to
> conceal the crappiness of their designs and most
customers
> just care if the device works, they don't care if the
only
> way the device can work is if 60% of their system's CPU
is
> tied up servicing a device driver that is making up
for
> hardware shortcomings, so it is still rather difficult
> for a customer to become informed about what is good
and
> what isn't - other than trial and error.
>
> I hardly think that the example I cited - the 3com
3c905 PCI
> network adapter - is an example of poor support in
FreeBSD.
> The FreeBSD driver for the 509 worked perfectly well
when
> the 309 used a Lucent-built ASIC.  When 3com decided
to
> save 50 cents a card by switching to Broadcom for the
> ASIC manufacturing, the FreeBSD driver didn't work
very
> well with those cards - nor did the Linux driver for
that
> matter.  This clearly wasn't a driver problem it was a
> problem with Broadcom not following 3com's design
specs
> properly.  3com did the only thing they could - which
> was to put a hack into the Windows driver - but of
course,
> nobody bothered telling the Linux or FreeBSD community
> about it, we had to find out by dicking around with
the
> driver code.
>
> If datacenters want to purchase poor hardware and run
their
> stuff on it, that's their choice.  Just because a
piece
> of hardware is "mainstream" doesen't mean
it's good.  It
> mainly means it's inexpensive.
>
> Ted
>

Ted I never meant mainstream = good but I did mean
mainstream cannot
be ignored and written off if something is mainstream it is
for a
reason if the hardware was so poor then I am sure complaints
would be
so high it would no longer be mainstream.  Not sure if you
understanding me I am most defenitly not saying I expect a
cheap
network card to perform on par with a premium card.  I am
merely
saying ideally it should perform and be as stable as it is
in other
operating systems and if it isnt then look at what can be
improved
rather than just saying go buy a new peice of kit.  Is
freebsd a
operating system for use on premium hardware only? as that
what it
feels like I am reading sometimes.

Now on the bind tests if the hardware used on both linux and
freebsd
was the exact same spec hardware then blaming the hardware
is invalid
as its apple vs apple.  Obviously if the linux tests were
done on
superior hardware then its apple vs orange and the tests
are
invalidated.

Chris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performancefreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-p
erformance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-performance-unsubscribefreebsd.org"