danial_thom at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 2 10:18:15 PST 2005
--- Hiten Pandya <hmp at xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You obviously did not research on who Matthew
> Dillon is, otherwise you
> would know that he has plenty of real world
> experience. The guy wrote
> a packet rate controller inspired by basic laws
> of physics, give him
> credit instead of being rude.
> Time will tell whether he was wrong about his
> arguments on PCI-X or not,
> and whether our effort with DragonFly is just
> plain useless; but there
> is absolutely no need for animosity on the
> Should you wish to continue debating
> performance issues then do so with
> a civil manner.
> Kind regards,
> Hiten Pandya
> hmp at dragonflybsd.org
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > You obviously have forgotten the original
> > of this (which is how do we get past the
> > of UP networking performance), and you also
> > obviously have no practical experience with
> > heavily utilized network devices, because you
> > seem to have no grasp on the real issues.
> > Being smart is not about knowing everything;
> > about recognizing when you don't and making
> > effort to learn. I seem to remember you
> > that there was no performance advantage to
> > as well not so long ago. Its really quite
> > to me that you can continue to stick to
> > that are so easily provable to be wrong.
> > someday you'll trade in your slide rule and
> > yourself a good test bed. College is over.
> > to enter reality, where the results are
> > never whole numbers.
I know Matt very well, and he knows a lot about a
lot of things. I generally have respect for his
analysis. But he doesn't know everything, and
he's particularly weak in networking. Judging by
his comments on this thread, I'd say that he's a
lot weaker than I expected. He admittedly doesn't
even understand how PCI bursting works or how
flow control works, and he's in complete denial
about packet loss issues, so how can he lecture
anyone on anything related to network processing?
I, on the other hand, have made millions of $$
designing and selling network equipment based on
unix-like OSes, so I'm not only qualified to
lecture on the subject, but I'm also qualified to
tell Matt that he's dead wrong about just about
everything he's said in this thread. If you think
that convincing 1000s of people to spend $1000s.
on systems running a Free OS is not because of
results (as opposed to conjecture), then you
haven't tried to do it. Results trump theory
Research will show that DragonFLYBSD exists
because Matt's peers in the FreeBSD camp
disagreed with his ideas, so its not like he's
Jesus Christ as you guys portray him. He created
DFLY so he could again be the one-eyed man in the
land of the blind. Lots of brilliant economists
are wrong much of the time. Does dragonfly still
use 10K as the default interrupt moderation for
the em device? Wow, that means that just about
everyone running Dragonfly with em devices is
getting 1 interrupt per packet, since I doubt
many of you are pushing more than 10K pps. What
brilliance came up with RAISING the default of 8K
to 10K? Faulty analysis by Matt is the answer.
Google a thread with the subject "serious
networking (em) performance (ggate and NFS)
problem", and you'll see he's maintained the
same, stupid position about packet loss a full
year ago. He hasn't learned a friggin thing in a
year, because he thinks he's already got the
answer. That, my friend, is the definition of a
If you think that ANYONE is an auhority on every
subject you are a fool. But here is Matt, who
again and again admits that hes not "sure" about
things like flow control and how the bus works,
yet you follow his theories without question. Its
All of the empirical evidence points to Matt
being wrong. If you still can't accept that then
DFLY is more of a religion than a project, which
is damn shame.
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
More information about the Users