httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: Question about *bsd platforms
Date Wed, 20 Aug 1997 01:23:02 GMT
Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD/BSD* are the three different worlds of common
TCP/IP implementations.  Nearly everyone has a BSD-based stack.  Linux has
their own stack.  Solaris 2.x has a brand new stack ... and 2.6 brings
major changes to it. 

So "Ideally, its TCP would behave like Solaris's" isn't gonna happen... 
besides, unless you're talking about Solaris 2.6 then you don't want it to
behave like Solaris.  Even Linux's relatively young stack is better than
pre 2.6. 

FreeBSD's stack is the oldest/stablest.  Linux' is still going through a
performance overhaul, with almost all known bugs worked out (the goal was
to outperform Sun's ISS suite... it seems to have matched it at least). 

Alan Cox of linux-fame does a lot of radio work.  Post this question again
on (a majordomo list).  There's probably a
FreeBSD counterpart. 


On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:

> Hi.
> 	We are building an HTTP proxy tuned to the unusual parameters
> of our radio modem network for testing, and one thing I hope to do is
> hand-tune the TCP for better performance.  Without going into too much
> detail, loss of packets is more often due to RF noise and not network
> congestion, a very different assumption than Van Jacobson's TCP makes,
> so we plan to re-examine the retransmission strategies and congestion
> window management...
> 	My question is this:  of the platforms we could build our
> mock-up on (Sparc or PC hardware), we need to have source access to
> the TCP drivers (and haven't allocated budget to buying Solaris
> sources).  So it seems our choices are Linux, NetBSD, or FreeBSD.
> Does anyone (without bringing religion into this) have any recommen-
> dations or cautions for any one of the three?  Ideally, its TCP would
> behave like Solaris's.
> 	I don't know if this is of general interest (or even relevance)
> so you might want to reply to me directly.
> Thanks,
> -Philip

View raw message