[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080924081603.08a5f808@extreme>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:16:03 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM9 regression
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:12:37 +0800
>
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:14:27PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I just dont seem to be able to get 2.6.27 to behave in a speedy way network
> > > wise. Configured out various components (netfilter, etc etc) but I still keep
> > > getting these aim9 result against 2.6.22:
> >
> > Could you please compare this against something less ancient,
> > like 2.6.26 perhaps?
>
> Herbert, this is part of the tbench regression issues. Christoph
> took tbench from 2.6.22 until 2.6.27 and at basically every release
> tbench performance suffered noticably.
>
> Now, he's taking the AIM9 benchmark networking numbers and showing
> that the same exact effect is seen there too.
>
> It really behooves us to start doing something proactive about this
> blindingly obvious set of networking performance regressions through
> the past 6 or so releases instead of barking at the reporters saying
> things like "try this, try that, what's your config" etc.
>
> :-)
These loopback benchmarks are often more sensitive to scheduler than networking
changes.
--
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