netdev - Re: tcp bw in 2.6

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20071002172002.GO17418@bitmover.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:20:02 -0700
From:	lm@...mover.com (Larry McVoy)
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc:	Larry McVoy <lm@...mover.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	davem@...emloft.net, wscott@...mover.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:14:11AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >A short summary is "can someone please post a test program that sources
> >and sinks data at the wire speed?"  because apparently I'm too old and
> >clueless to write such a thing.
> 
> WRT the different speeds in each direction talking with HP-UX, perhaps 
> there is an interaction between the Linux TCP stack (TSO perhaps) and 
> HP-UX's ACK avoidance heuristics. If that is the case, tweaking 
> tcp_deferred_ack_max with ndd on the HP-UX system might yield different 
> results.

I doubt it because I see the same sort of behaviour when I have a group
of Linux clients talking to the server.  The HP box is in the mix
simply because it has a gigabit card and that makes driving the load
simpler.  But if I do several loads from 100Mbit clients I get the same
packet throughput.

> WRT the small program making a setsockopt(SO_*BUF) call going slower than 
> the rsh, does rsh make the setsockopt() call, or does it bend itself to the 
> will of the linux stack's autotuning?  What happens if your small program 
> does not make setsockopt(SO_*BUF) calls?

I haven't tracked down if rsh does that but I've tried doing it with 
values of default, 64K, 1MB, and 10MB with no difference.

> *) depending on the quantity of CPU around, and the type of test one is 

These are fast CPUs and they are running at 93% idle while running the test.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.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