Eliezer Tamir <[email protected]> wrote: > Performance: > using sockperf, Intel X520 NICs, > Supermicro 6026TT-BTF systems with E5-2690 Xeon CPUs > 100 UDP sockets avg. latency 5.756 (std-dev 0.510) > 1k UDP sockets avg. latency 5.780 (std-dev 0.536) > 10k UDP sockets avg. latency 6.269 (std-dev 0.611)
How does this compare to with normal poll on this system? In other words, what advantage is there to using epoll instead of poll when busy looping? epoll and busy_poll seem to be opposites. epoll inherently has higher latency than normal poll, but provides stable performance with many more FDs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights, analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. Visit us today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
