[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1354230100.3299.40.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:01:40 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, fw@...len.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org, tgraf@...g.ch,
amwang@...hat.com, kaber@...sh.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2 1/9] net: frag evictor, avoid killing warm
frag queues
On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 23:17 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> For example lets give a threshold of 2000 MBytes:
>
> [root@...gon ~]# sysctl -w net/ipv4/ipfrag_high_thresh=$(((1024**2*2000)))
> net.ipv4.ipfrag_high_thresh = 2097152000
>
> [root@...gon ~]# sysctl -w net/ipv4/ipfrag_low_thresh=$(((1024**2*2000)-655350))
> net.ipv4.ipfrag_low_thresh = 2096496650
>
> 4x10 Netperf adjusted output:
> Socket Message Elapsed Messages
> Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput
> bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec
>
> 229376 65507 20.00 298685 0 7826.35
> 212992 20.00 27 0.71
>
> 229376 65507 20.00 366668 0 9607.71
> 212992 20.00 13 0.34
>
> 229376 65507 20.00 254790 0 6676.20
> 212992 20.00 14 0.37
>
> 229376 65507 20.00 309293 0 8104.33
> 212992 20.00 15 0.39
>
> Can we agree that the current evictor strategy is broken?
Not really, you drop packets because of another limit.
--
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