3 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly many people would have noticed if OpenBSD's networking was generally half as fast as it's supposed to be. It must be somet
by anyfoo 8y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly many people would have noticed if OpenBSD's networking was generally half as fast as it's supposed to be. It must be something related to your specific configuration (not necessarily just software).
- ggm 8y agoActually I think very few OpenBSD people would notice if under load OpenBSD was significantly slower than Linux because very few OpenBSD people deploy in situation where they can do sustained parallel load tests. Linux has BBR. OpenBSD doesn't have BBR. The difference between BBR and Cubic or classic TCP is immense.
- anyfoo 8y agoThat's a good point. I read the comment such as that every transfer over TCP would be twice as slow, which would be pretty absurd, but the poster probably meant high load/bandwidth situations. It would not surprise me at all if OpenBSD fared way worse, there.
- ggm 8y agoIt should be said that OpenBSD is a fine system, and this specific (BBR) difference would only show up if you had significantly large amounts of data to transfer in flows. I suspect normal use of OpenBSD as most people deploy it (which is not streaming data at high speed) wouldn't care. I have nothing against OpenBSD. If the developers don't want to implement BBR right now because of more important stuff on their backlog, thats fine with me.
- ardy42 8y agoIt's not exactly the same thing, but I've read posts where people are saying that pfSense (FreeBSD) can't route at gigabit speeds on a PCEngines APU2, while a similar Linux-based routing distribution can on the same hardware.