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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
"Wow that 300mhz P2 must have a hell of a system bus. "
Depends almost entirely on the number of packets per second and not on the bits per second. More packets, more interrupts, more CPU load. This is why gigabit nic's have interrupt mitigation and large buffers. If you use large packets you can get very respectable bps on low end hardware.
Still, 1gbps on a 300mhz p2 is suspiciously high.
"I have a 3.8ghz P4 at work that couldn't get above 40 megabytes per second in throughput."
This, on the other hand, is suspiciously low.
Member since:2006-01-04
That's definitely not normal. Even my Disk I/O is better than that on a 5 year old P4 Linux system (around 50MB/s to a plain old PATA drive). PCI should be capable of 133MB/s and GigE is 128MB/s.
The point is, regardless of throughput speed, the processor time consumption of Linux network code seems to be far lower than that of Vista.
Member since:2005-11-14
Gapless and in sync.
Member since:
2005-07-22
Wow that 300mhz P2 must have a hell of a system bus. I have a 3.8ghz P4 at work that couldn't get above 40 megabytes per second in throughput. Still very fast, but not very close to maxing out gigabit ethernet.