netdev - Re: A Linux TCP SACK Question

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: <649aecc70804051417l4cf9b30asec8ca8d55e79e051@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:17:45 -0400
From:	"Sangtae Ha" <sangtae.ha@...il.com>
To:	wenji@...l.gov
Cc:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	"John Heffner" <johnwheffner@...il.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A Linux TCP SACK Question

Can you run the attached script and run your testing again?
I think it might be the problem of your dual cores balance the
interrupts on your testing NIC.
As we do a lot of things with SACK, cache misses and etc. might affect
your performance.

In default setting, I disabled tcp segment offload and did a smp
affinity setting to CPU 0.
Please change "INF" to your interface name and let us know the results.

Sangtae


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov> wrote:
>
> >...Assuming it wasn't disabled already. If you find that there's
> >significant difference, you could try also with SACK+basic FRTO (set
> >the tcp_frto sysctl to 1).
>
> No, still the same. I tried tcp_frto with 0, 1, 2.
>
> SACK On is worse than SACK off.
>
> wenji
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>

Download attachment "tuning.sh" of type "application/x-sh" (1753 bytes)