Got it, then I will try netperf. Thanks. +++++++++++++++++ Best, Hao
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:12:49PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > > On 16 July 2015 at 13:08, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:22:29AM -0700, Hao Wu wrote: > > >> Yes, you are right. I find the bottleneck is tcprelay which only > > >> generates packets at 750Kpps. But even when I add more hosts to send > > >> packets in parallel, I can't get a higher generation rate. E.g., if I > use > > >> only one host, tcpreplay sends packets at 300Kpps, while if I use 6 > hosts, > > >> each tcpreplay sends packets at around 130Kpps and the total rate is > still > > >> 750Kpps. How do you get a higher generation rate in your experiment? > Thanks. > > > > > > I think we used netperf. I've never use tcpreplay so I don't have any > > > hints. > > > > Even with netperf, you need to run several threads and depending on > > the test you may exhaust all CPU running netperf to generate the > > traffic before you start hitting OVS performance limits. > > Right, the OVS paper mentions that we ran 400 netperf instances in > parallel. >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
