[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D3DC4AB.1000207@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:27:55 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited
>
> Just to block netperf you can send it SIGSTOP :)
>
Clever :) One could I suppose achieve the same result by making the remote
receive socket buffer size smaller than the UDP message size and then not worry
about having to learn the netserver's PID to send it the SIGSTOP. I *think* the
semantics will be substantially the same? Both will be drops at the socket
buffer, albeit for for different reasons. The "too small socket buffer" version
though doesn't require one remember to "wake" the netserver in time to have it
send results back to netperf without netperf tossing-up an error and not
reporting any statistics.
Also, netperf has a "no control connection" mode where you can, in effect cause
it to send UDP datagrams out into the void - I put it there to allow folks to
test against the likes of echo discard and chargen services but it may have a
use here. Requires that one specify the destination IP and port for the "data
connection" explicitly via the test-specific options. In that mode the only
stats reported are those local to netperf rather than netserver.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
--
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