lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:30:40 -0400
From:	jamal <>
To:	Bill Fink <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][NET_BATCH] net core use batching

On Mon, 2007-01-10 at 00:11 -0400, Bill Fink wrote:

> Have you done performance comparisons for the case of using 9000-byte
> jumbo frames?

I havent, but will try if any of the gige cards i have support it.

As a side note: I have not seen any useful gains or losses as the packet
size approaches even 1500B MTU. For example, post about 256B neither the
batching nor the non-batching give much difference in either throughput
or cpu use. Below 256B, theres a noticeable gain for batching.
Note, in the cases of my tests all 4 CPUs are in full-throttle UDP and
so the occupancy of both the qdisc queue(s) and ethernet ring is
constantly high. For example at 512B, the app is 80% idle on all 4 CPUs
and we are hitting in the range of wire speed. We are at 90% idle at
1024B. This is the case with or without batching.  So my suspicion is
that with that trend a 9000B packet will just follow the same pattern.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists