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 266477
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Driver Quality
by segedunum on Wed 29th Aug 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Driver Quality"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Look at the history of networking. People have been talking about TOE for years, even with 10 and 100 networks, and it has never come about because CPUs and hardware in general have kept pace. TOE also dramatically increases the cost and complexity of network cards, drivers and stacks for no benefit. Additionally, in some cases it may not even increase performance at all, because of extra communication between the network card and the rest of the system.

Networking is supposed to just work, not get reinvented. It is no reason to completely redesign and rewrite a network stack and all the associated drivers. TOE has not been proven to offer any benefit whatsoever.

Mind you, from what Mark Russinovitch showed, it isn't doing a good job of keeping CPU usage down!

Using the rationale of the 'Linux experts' - encryption acceleration and XML parsing acceleration are all a waste of time.

Depends on what the cost/benefit is.

Something demonstrated in the number of re-writes of Linux subsystems because inadequate of designing before writing the code.

You misunderstand. That's called iterative improvement. People ask themselves if there is a pay-off in the long run and it is usually done without affecting anything else or rewriting ten dozen drivers.

It's how Linux keeps improving, and how, quite frankly, systems like Vista and Solaris don't.

Edited 2007-08-29 11:12

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Driver Quality
by kaiwai on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Driver Quality"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Look at the history of networking. People have been talking about TOE for years, even with 10 and 100 networks, and it has never come about because CPUs and hardware in general have kept pace. TOE also dramatically increases the cost and complexity of network cards, drivers and stacks for no benefit. Additionally, in some cases it may not even increase performance at all, because of extra communication between the network card and the rest of the system.

Networking is supposed to just work, not get reinvented. It is no reason to completely redesign and rewrite a network stack and all the associated drivers. TOE has not been proven to offer any benefit whatsoever.

Mind you, from what Mark Russinovitch showed, it isn't doing a good job of keeping CPU usage down!


One could apply that rationale to another of other devices, and yet, they're still used.

One has to ask, if they've been 'trying' to do somethinmg for 10 years, one would assume that maybe there is a rationale behind it - one that does make sense.

I mean, I assume that thee decisions are being made by people who are far more intelligent than me, and thus probably know alot more about the greater complexities that exist. For someone (Robert Love) to jump out of the wood works and slam something with an off the cuff remark smacks of ignorance more than anything else.

Oh, and if Rober love wants a tip - could he please fix the networking stack in Linux; everytime I tried to do something like ripping a CD I would find my wireless network performance plumet, heck, some cases the websites wouldn't even load! I find it rich he is complaining about Windows and yet ignores the elephant in his own room.

You misunderstand. That's called iterative improvement. People ask themselves if there is a pay-off in the long run and it is usually done without affecting anything else or rewriting ten dozen drivers.

It's how Linux keeps improving, and how, quite frankly, systems like Vista and Solaris don't.


It isn't 'iterative' - iterative means that you take an existing idea and build upon it. For example, I grab a sponge cake, put icing and other stuff and turn it into a Gatto.

One grabs the existing networking code and then builds ontop of it a wireless stack which implements the required wireless features by extending the existing networking stack.

That is what iterative is. Linux doesn't iterate, it throws out and starts again. Fixing old problems and introducing new ones. It wastes time, breaks compatibility and quite frankly, no one learns anything through the wasted exercise of re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

Why you slag Solaris, god only knows, because unless you've been living in a cave, Solaris improves without re-inventing the wheel. Features being added all the time, and features that were added 4 years ago *shock* aren't so badly designed they actually need to be replaced and break compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 3