[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <467FFCD2.30908@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:35:14 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
Gagan Arneja <gaagaan@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>
Subject: Re: [WIP][PATCHES] Network xmit batching
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:00:07PM -0700, Rick Jones (rick.jones2@...com) wrote:
>
>>>Simple test included test -> desktop and vice versa traffic with 128 and
>>>4096 block size in netperf-2.4.3 setup.
>>
>>Is that in conjunction with setting the test-specific -D to set
>>TCP_NODELAY, or was Nagle left-on? If the latter, perhaps timing issues
>>could be why the confidence intervals weren't hit since the relative
>>batching of 128byte sends into larger segments is something of a race.
>
>
> I used this parameters:
> netperf -l 60 -H kano -t TCP_STREAM -i 10,2 -I 99,5 -- -m 128 -s 128K
> -S 128K
You can take -i up to 30 for the max count if you want to try to hit the
levels.
>
> so without nodelay.
>
> With nodelay I've gotten:
> batch-128: 128.91 mbit/sec
> mainline-128: 140.57 mbit/sec
>
> which is about 5 times less than withouth nodelay (~760 mbit/s)
> Although nodelay results look more realistic.
all that fun send batching that happens without nodelay :)
rick jones
>
>
>
>>rick jones
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists