netdev - Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47A379B8.1040604@aei.mpg.de>
Date:	Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:57:44 +0100
From:	Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@....mpg.de>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
CC:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Bruce Allen <ballen@...vity.phys.uwm.edu>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Henning Fehrmann <henning.fehrmann@....mpg.de>,
	Bruce Allen <bruce.allen@....mpg.de>
Subject: Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed

Hi all

Rick Jones wrote:
> 2) use the aforementioned "burst" TCP_RR test.  This is then a single 
> netperf with data flowing both ways on a single connection so no issue 
> of skew, but perhaps an issue of being one connection and so one process 
> on each end.

Since our major gaol is to establish a reliable way to test duplex 
connections this looks like a very good choice. Right now we just run 
this on a back to back test (cable connecting two hosts), but want to 
move to a high performance network with up to three switches between 
hosts. For this we want to have a stable test.

I doubt that I will be able to finish the tests tonight, but I'll post a 
follow-up latest on Monday.

Have a nice week-end and thanks a lot for all the suggestions so far!

Cheers

Carsten
--
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