[Info-vax] Accuweather new contract

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
> David Froble
> Sent: 30-Mar-15 3:57 AM
> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] Accuweather new contract
> 
> 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.
> 

That's a pile of crap. 

I am simply pointing out a possible flaw in the tests that were done some 
time ago. Especially when the 2x faster than OpenVMS results point to
a known issue that results in an OpenVMS stack throughput being half 
of what it should be.

> Perhaps actually addressing the problem might be more helpful ?

As stated in my replies, I am not saying the VMS stack does not have 
Issues that need to be addressed. Everyone here knows that (VSI
Included).

Are other current stacks currently faster to some degree than VMS?  
Sure - we all know HP has not kept up the way we think it should have
and VSI has announced some plans to address this.

I am saying I find it hard to believe informal tests that show a Linux 
network stack doing simply network transfers is currently twice the 
performance of OpenVMS on comparable HW.

How is that misdirection?

Regards,

Kerry Main
Back to the Future IT Inc.
 .. Learning from the past to plan the future

Kerry dot main at backtothefutureit dot com