On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:47:08PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen Torri wrote:
>
> > A friend of mine is critical of linux for not having a
> > multithreaded TCP/IP stack. Is that true? If it is not then
> > what kernel version introduced it. If it is then when should we
> > expect to see it?
> >
> > Stephen
> >
>
> This is cute. Could you ask your friend what a multi-threaded
> TCP/IP stack is?
>
> His friend probably refers to the locking used by the stack and how
> much concurrency you'll get with multiple processors.
>
> With 2.2.x most of the stack is under a single lock, with 2.4.x
> locking will be such that multiple processors can be in the stack at
> the same time (the performance should be much greater then under high
> load on big SMP boxes).
>
I have heard over-and-over again by the M$ trained groupies how
M$ is so much better than Linux. This lie exists with any closed-
source. Sun used to say much the same thing until they got smart
and learned from Linux, then actively supported it because it
makes their machines run better.
M$ actually stated several years ago, they they didn't need to use
spin-locks in SMP machines because they invented a special mechanism which
nobody else can use. This means that M$ will always be "superior" because
it doesn't need to use "inferior" spin-locks. I think the "invention" was
to used the second CPU as a heater.
The lies go on.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.15 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST