[Info-vax] Accuweather new contract

[David Froble]

Kerry Main wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
>> Craig A. Berry
>> Sent: 29-Mar-15 9:13 PM
>> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
>> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] Accuweather new contract
>>
>> On 3/29/15 6:03 PM, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> johnson.eric at gmail.com
>>>> Sent: 29-Mar-15 4:49 PM
>>>> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] Accuweather new contract
>>>> My basic mode of comparison was... how long does it take to send a
>>>> single
>>>> 80 byte UDP packet. I measured that by doing that in a tight loop. It
>> was
>>>> pretty
>>>> easy to write a portable version that ran on both Linux and VMS. For
>>>> grins
>>>> I also write a version that used the QIO$ interface. That improved
>> things
>>>> a little
>>>> bit, but Linux still won by a wide margin.
>>>>
>>>> EJ
>>> Not saying that Linux might be marginally faster, but usually when
>> there Is
>>> a "wide margin", there is usually something else under pinning the
>> results.
>>> When network results like this are seen, I usually think of the mis-
>> matched
>>> full duplex auto-config issue with older network gear, NIC's and drivers.
>> Kerry, please read more details of Eric's careful analysis in the
>> archives of this group before posting such nonsense.
> 
> As I recall, Eric's previous analysis showed OpenVMS network numbers 
> to be approx. half those of Linux which would be exactly what would be
> he case if the autoconfig issue were present when he did the testing.
> 
> Either that or one must believe that Linux network numbers are twice 
> those of OpenVMS using similar network configs - something I find a bit 
> of a stretch.
> 
> The autoconfig issue is well known and has in various environments
> impacted VAX, Alpha & Integrity. I have seen it first hand in a number
> of different sites.

Yes, there can be network issues.  But perhaps a few people actually 
know what they are doing, and have gotten past that.

More than a few people, knowledgeable people, have found the network 
performance of VMS to be less than some competition.

To come out with such apologist statements when presented with some 
facts is less than helpful.  As Craig noted, you're posting useless 
misdirection.

Perhaps actually addressing the problem might be more helpful ?