[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4702766E.80202@candelatech.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:48:46 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: lm@...mover.com, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
wscott@...mover.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6
Larry McVoy wrote:
> Interesting data point. My test case is like this:
>
> server
> bind
> listen
> while (newsock = accept...)
> transfer()
>
> client
> connect
> transfer
>
> If the server side is the source of the data, i.e, it's transfer is a
> write loop, then I get the bad behaviour. If I switch them so the data
> flows in the other direction, then it works, I go from about 14K pkt/sec
> to 43K pkt/sec.
>
> Can anyone else reproduce this? I can extract the test case from lmbench
> so it is standalone but I suspect that any test case will do it. I'll
> try with the one that John sent. Yup, s/read/write/ and s/write/read/
> in his two files at the appropriate places and I get exactly the same
> behaviour.
>
> So is this a bug or intentional?
>
I have a more complex configuration & application, but I don't see this
problem in
my testing. Using e1000 nics and modern hardware I can set up a connection
between two machines and run 800+Mbps in both directions, or near line speed
in one direction if the other direction is mostly silent.
I am purposefully setting the socket send/rx buffers, as well has
twiddling with
the tcp and netdev related tunables. If you want, I can email these
tweaks to you.
NICs and busses have a huge impact on performance, so make sure those
are good.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
-
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