[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EC29FE7.70904@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:22:47 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
bhutchings@...arflare.com, shemminger@...tta.com, fubar@...ibm.com,
tgraf@...radead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, mirqus@...il.com,
kaber@...sh.net, greearb@...delatech.com, jesse@...ira.com,
fbl@...hat.com, benjamin.poirier@...il.com, jzupka@...hat.com,
ivecera@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next V8] net: introduce ethernet teaming device
> On most modern systems I suspect there will be little to no difference
> between bonding RX peformance and team performance.
>
> If there is any now, I suspect team and bond performance to be similar
> by the time team has to account for the corner-cases bonding has already
> resolved. :-)
>
> Benchmarks may prove otherwise, but I've yet to see Jiri produce
> anything. My initial testing doesn't demonstrate any measureable
> differences with 1Gbps interfaces on a multi-core, multi-socket system.
I wouldn't expect much difference in terms of bandwidth, I was thinking
the demonstration would be made in the area of service demand (CPU
consumed per unit work) and perhaps aggregate packets per second.
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