Re: freebsd vs linux: performance problem


--- Erich Dollansky <oceanare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Nash Nipples wrote:
sounds like a power unit problem. try to switch them and repeat.

hey, in the next step you tell him that the MTU is set wrongly.


Now, in simple memory access operations, I see the freebsd system
being
noticably slower than the linux system. A simple C program that
copies

As already mentioned, are both systems working as 32 or 64 bit
systems?

Both are working as 64 bit systems.


from one memory buffer to another, when executed in a loop executes
between 10-30% slower on freebsd, as compared to linux. The
assembly
code of the program used for testing is identical in both the
cases.

Don't you call memcpy?

Well, I first did - then I wrote a function to do the same, just to
make sure that the code executed is exactly the same in both the cases.
The difference was there both when using memcpy, and when using the
replacement function.


Erich
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • FreeBSD vuln...
    ... The Apache hole itself only allows you to execute code as Nobody, ... bug in memcpy on FreeBSD to gain a root shell. ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)
  • Re: FreeBSD vuln...
    ... On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: ... > memcpy bug is? ... > I know that the OpenBSD exploit aparently uses memcpy but does anyone have ... > details on the FreeBSD exploit? ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)