netdev - Re: HTB accuracy on 10GbE

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: <4AF110CE.8070701@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:27:42 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Ryousei Takano <ryousei@...il.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	takano-ryousei@...t.go.jp
Subject: Re: HTB accuracy on 10GbE

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> 
> Hmm, do you know part of the error comes from the user tool itself ?
> 
> If you check iperf results at sender and receiver you'll see different
> values, sender lies a bit.
> 
> Tried here on a Gbit link (I dont have 10Gbe yet)
> 
> $ ./iperf.bench.sh
> .100 104
> .200 206
> .300 307
> .400 413
> .500 515
> .600 610
> .700 715
> .800 822
> .900 913
> 1.000 945
> 
(that was with standard 1500 MTU)

Now, with 9000 MTU and 50 seconds samples (instead of 5 s) I get :

$ ./iperf.bench.sh
.100 101
.200 200
.300 301
.400 401
.500 500
.600 601
.700 700
.800 803
.900 903
1.000 991

Not too bad :)
--
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