From: sda...@netcom.com (\Steven C. Dabbs) Subject: Reliable Linux? Which version? Date: 1995/05/21 Message-ID: < sdabbsD8wo4z.4v8@netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 102956961 sender: sda...@netcom21.netcom.com organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking Ever since .95 there seems to be a great deal of unstability in linux. What version is A>stable as far as memory and TCP/IP sockets(working) since 1.2.0? Which ones are definitely baD? Why are linux connects (tcp) so slow compared to other os's, like instead of .1 second, they are 1 second or so for any tcp connection?
From: jupi...@iii2.iii.net (Craig Shrimpton) Subject: Re: Reliable Linux? Which version? Date: 1995/05/21 Message-ID: <3pothc$7o@iii2.iii.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 103025625 references: < sdabbsD8wo4z.4v8@netcom.com> organization: iii.net newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking \Steven C. Dabbs (sda...@netcom.com) wrote: : Ever since .95 there seems to be a great deal of unstability in linux. : What version is A>stable as far as memory and TCP/IP sockets(working) : since 1.2.0? I have been using 1.2.5 since mid April 24hrs / day with no problems. Granted I'm a three user system but I'm also running Samba to serve files to my other 2 PCs. Samba, along with wasting most of my time on the net, puts Linux through a good workout. I've had no hung sockets with 1.2.5 and no other wierdness that I can detect. Serial communications and TCP/IP are a little slow but face it, no one can touch BSD in the networking department. I hear alot of talk about un-stability but I've not seen it. Naturally various features over the last million or so kernels have met with mixed success but I really can't see un-stability. I started using Linux arourd .99pl?? and have used most kernels since then and never - repeat *NEVER* had a crash. Any system restarts have been of my own doing. This is not to say that all the kernels were good, no doubt most of them really sucked. I think most of the horror stories of instability are due to botched installs, incompatible systems and people not knowing what they are doing. I have been very happy with Linux and all those working on it. I wish I could have contributed to the development effort, but alas, my skills lie in database systems and not OS development. However, IMHO 1.2.5 is groovy and I'll stay there until Linus decides to end the 1.2.XX series. Cheers, Craig
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Reliable Linux? Which version? Date: 1995/05/30 Message-ID: < D9EH5K.HL1@info.swan.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 103496615 sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk x-nntp-posting-host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk references: < sdabbsD8wo4z.4v8@netcom.com> <3pothc$7o@iii2.iii.net> organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking In article <3pothc...@iii2.iii.net> jupi...@iii2.iii.net (Craig Shrimpton) writes: >I've had no hung sockets with 1.2.5 and no other wierdness that I can >detect. Serial communications and TCP/IP are a little slow but face it, no >one can touch BSD in the networking department. There appears to be one overlong socket death bug left when an interface is taken down and a socket has queued data. I'm not exactly sure of the internals yet. As to touching BSD, in several areas we are ahead, by 1.4 I hope we have left BSD behind 8). Speed wise you should be seeing the same speed (near enough) with Linux and BSD TCP [From my benchmarks]. BSD loses on the mbufs but makes up on better TCP algorithms and one hit socket cache for small systems. Time will tell, but I have plenty cooking and plenty queued up for Linus and 1.3.0. Not only that but the number of other network code contributors is growing quite fast now. Alan -- ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,, // Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU // ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------'' Redistribution of this message via the Microsoft Network is prohibited