[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5133914.uYLb0gnNTc@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:28:20 +0200
From: alekcejk@...glemail.com
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: limited network bandwidth with 3.2.x kernels
В сообщении от Вторник 14 февраля 2012 15:13:18 вы написали:
> Le mardi 14 février 2012 à 16:08 +0200, alekcejk@...glemail.com a
>
> écrit :
> > В сообщении от Вторник 14 февраля 2012 06:55:02 вы написали:
> > > Le mardi 14 février 2012 à 01:49 +0200, alekcejk@...glemail.com a
> > >
> > > écrit :
> > > > В сообщении от Понедельник 13 февраля 2012 23:44:16 вы написали:
> > > > > Le lundi 13 février 2012 à 21:18 +0100, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > > > > I wonder if the other side of your link believes link is in half duplex
> > > > > mode... Could you please check ?
> > > >
> > > > I have no access to other side, the only I can check is ethtool and mii-diag (kernel-3.2.3):
> > > I have seen numerous duplex mismatches in some data centers after a
> > > reboot. One side believes link is full duplex, the other side believes
> > > its half duplex.
> >
> > Was no such problems here.
> >
> > > You could setup a pktgen/hping3 to send 2.000 small frames per second to
> > > your gateway and check if you still can download at normal speeds.
> > >
> > > hping3 --udp -s 9 -p 9 -i u500 192.168.1.1
> >
> > Download speed not changed when running this command for my gw.
>
> I mean with a 3.2 kernel of course ;)
Yes, results are the same for 3.2.3 kernel with and without running
this command and for geographically close to me server (speed not limited)
and for server not close to me speed limitation the same.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists