[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47A1E026.2070805@roinet.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:50:14 -0500
From: David Acker <dacker@...net.com>
To: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
CC: SANGTAE HA <sangtae.ha@...il.com>,
Bruce Allen <ballen@...vity.phys.uwm.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed
Bill Fink wrote:
> If the receive direction uses a different GigE NIC that's part of the
> same quad-GigE, all is fine:
>
> [bill@...nce4 ~]$ nuttcp -f-beta -Itx -w2m 192.168.6.79 & nuttcp -f-beta -Irx -r -w2m 192.168.5.79
> tx: 1186.5051 MB / 10.05 sec = 990.2250 Mbps 12 %TX 13 %RX 0 retrans
> rx: 1186.7656 MB / 10.05 sec = 990.5204 Mbps 15 %TX 14 %RX 0 retrans
Could this be an issue with pause frames? At a previous job I remember
having issues with a similar configuration using two broadcom sb1250 3
gigE port devices. If I ran bidirectional tests on a single pair of
ports connected via cross over, it was slower than when I gave each
direction its own pair of ports. The problem turned out to be that
pause frame generation and handling was not configured correctly.
-Ack
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists