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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:50:45 -0400
From:	Bill Fink <>
To:	Rick Jones <>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <>,
	Roland Dreier <>,
	David Miller <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: setsockopt()

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rick Jones wrote:

> > In my own network benchmarking experience, I've generally gotten the
> > best performance results when the nuttcp application and the NIC
> > interrupts are on the same CPU, which I understood was because of
> > cache effects.
> Interestingly enough I have a slightly different experience:
> *) single-transaction, single-stream TCP_RR - best when app and NIC use 
> same core
> *) bulk transfer - either TCP_STREAM or aggregate TCP_RR:
>    a) enough CPU on one core to reach max tput, best when same core
>    b) not enough, tput max when app and NIC on separate cores, 
> preferably cores sharing some cache
> That is in the context of either maximizing throughput or minimizing 
> latency.  If the context is most efficient transfer, then in all cases 
> my experience thusfar agrees with yours.

Yes, I was talking about single stream bulk data transfers, where the
CPU was not a limiting factor (just barely when doing full 10-GigE
line rate transfers with 9000-byte jumbo frames).

On multiple stream tests there can be a benefit to spreading the load
across multiple cores.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists