Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 00:28 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Windows Robert Love, a famous Linux kernel hacker, has written a blog entry with his thoughs on the recently posted Vista's network slowdown issue and the explanation given by Mark Russinovich: "Unlike DPCs, however, the Linux parallel does not consume nearly half of your CPU. There is no excusable reason why processing IP packets should so damagingly affect the system. Thus, this absolutely abysmal networking performance should be an issue in and of itself, but the Windows developers decided to focus on a secondary effect."
Thread beginning with comment 266396
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Driver Quality
by zlynx on Wed 29th Aug 2007 02:49 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

I suspect that the Linux vs. Windows difference is more in the drivers.

Looking at my Vista nForce controller properties, I have a ton of options, including flow control, interrupt moderation, 4 types of checksum offload, and 3 types of sender offload.

In Linux, everything that works is enabled. If it doesn't work, someone tries to find out why.

It appears to me though, that Windows drivers default to a play-it-safe mode, because most of those options were *disabled* on my controller.

It would be interesting to find out Mark's network controller, driver, and driver option settings. I believe Windows could do much better than 40% if most of the work was done on the network controller, as it should be.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Driver Quality
by netpython on Wed 29th Aug 2007 07:25 in reply to "Driver Quality"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows users are mostly the type of it should work out of the box. Nothing wrong with that. Why should they browse sites such as OSNews and the like to get their answers? And don't forget to count the ugly Genuine Advantage debacle. Ugly situation indeed. And they dare to ask a lot of money.

Edited 2007-08-29 07:26

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Driver Quality
by segedunum on Wed 29th Aug 2007 08:29 in reply to "Driver Quality"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I suspect that the Linux vs. Windows difference is more in the drivers.

Microsoft tried to do the same thing with NT 4 on a lot of occasions - try to blame third-party drivers.

It would be interesting to find out Mark's network controller, driver, and driver option settings. I believe Windows could do much better than 40% if most of the work was done on the network controller, as it should be.

That's exactly what Vista's network stack is supposed to do - offload to TOE. However, all that it's done is increase the complexity of the networking stack, drivers and the possibilities of things to go wrong.

The Linux guys quite rightly rejected TOE because there was a lot of pain with zero benefit to anyone.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Driver Quality
by kaiwai on Wed 29th Aug 2007 10:13 in reply to "RE: Driver Quality"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That's exactly what Vista's network stack is supposed to do - offload to TOE. However, all that it's done is increase the complexity of the networking stack, drivers and the possibilities of things to go wrong.

The Linux guys quite rightly rejected TOE because there was a lot of pain with zero benefit to anyone.


Based on what evidence? TOE is beneficial only for situations where the bandwidth utilisation is so high there are major performance penalties associated with processing huge amounts of TCP/IP information coming in. Heck, right now, for example, talk to anyone with incredibly large systems and the amount of CPU utilisation due to the amount of traffic.

Using the rationale of the 'Linux experts' - encryption acceleration and XML parsing acceleration are all a waste of time. Waste of time or more like, a complex problem that requires a design from the ground up for it to work properly. Something demonstrated in the number of re-writes of Linux subsystems because inadequate of designing before writing the code.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Driver Quality
by Soulbender on Wed 29th Aug 2007 10:49 in reply to "RE: Driver Quality"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The Linux guys quite rightly rejected TOE because there was a lot of pain with zero benefit to anyone."

There's no evidence that TOE is the cause of this problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2