| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4755D2EB.4000807@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:21:31 -0800 From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> To: Ariane Keller <ariane.keller@....ee.ethz.ch> CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Rainer Baumann <baumann@....ee.ethz.ch> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] netem: trace enhancement Ariane Keller wrote: > Yes, for short-term starvation it helps certainly. > But I'm still not convinced that it is really necessary to add more > buffers, because I'm not sure whether the bottleneck is really the > loading of data from user space to kernel space. > Some basic tests have shown that the kernel starts loosing packets at > approximately the same packet rate regardless whether we use netem, or > netem with the trace extension. > But if you have contrary experience I'm happy to add a parameter which > defines the number of buffers. I have no numbers, so if you think it works, then that is fine with me. If you actually run out of the trace buffers, do you just continue to run with the last settings? If so, that would keep up throughput even if you are out of trace buffers... What rates do you see, btw? (pps, bps). 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