: The "unique" tcp/ip implementation is a liability to linux.
: It could also be one of it's greatest assets, and I think this will
: turn out to be the case.
: Is anyone working to replace the standard linux stack
: with port derived from the 4.4BSD code?
: A couple of weeks ago, Larry was babbling to me "oh the stack is
: sloowww, I can't push nearly as much over 100mb/s ether as freebsd
: can, etc." I said, "thats peculiar" so I did some investigation and
: told Linus about it. Turned out to be a driver bug and after that was
: fixed the over the wire numbers are unparalleled.
That's not quite true, I think the BSD numbers are still better, I'll
have full lmbench apples to apples runs on the same hardware at the
end of this week.
: It [bsd] has a well defined architecture, I will agree with lm when he
: mentions that it is a jungle of code to sift through in certain
This is one of my complaints. The BSD stack has a defined set of "objects"
for dealing with networking; an incomplete list:
protocol structure for different address families
interface structure for different media types
socket structure that cleanly handles different protocols
Another big plus of the BSD stack is tcp_input.c and tcp_output.c. These
are what most people mean when they say "BSD networking".
Downsides of BSD:
. I don't particlularly like mbufs; I agree with Linus & Alan that
they are overkill.
. There are layering "invariants" that affect performance: you really
should allocate your send buffers from the interface driver, because
it could do some interesting things that would minimize cache flushing.
I think Van's prototype did this for witless cards.
. Single processor design. This is the biggest drawback, IMO.
. Come up with a strawman proposal for the set of "objects" we think
we need in Linux. Do this as part of the work Linus suggested to
merge the socket ops with the vfs ops.
. Steal the TCP code outright. Nuke the mbuf stuff, use the skbufs
or a slightly modified version thereof.
. Design in SMP support from the start. This means thinking about
thousands of connections running in parallel.
: I think the feeling that the linux stack is "hard to follow" or "has
: very little architecture" has a lot to do with the fact that we don't
: have 20 books analyzing the code c-statement by c-statement like the
: bsd stuff does. If we had that, I think this desire to use the
: berkeley stack would not be as strong.
Yeah, but a very reasonable point is "we don't have that". BSD does.
This is a big deal. Documentation is useful.