I've just tested on my box and loopback interface does not seem to be the bottleneck. I can easily push through ~400MB/s through two instances of mbuffer.
--Artem On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Sean <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/10/2010, at 11:43 AM, Artem Belevich wrote: > >>> As soon as I opened this email I knew what it would say. >>> >>> >>> # time zfs send storage/bac...@transfer | mbuffer | zfs receive >>> storage/compressed/bacula-mbuffer >>> in @ 197 MB/s, out @ 205 MB/s, 1749 MB total, buffer 0% full >> .. >>> Big difference. :) >> >> I'm glad it helped. >> >> Does anyone know why sending/receiving stuff via loopback is so much >> slower compared to pipe? > > > Up and down the entire network stack, in and out of TCP buffers at both > ends... might add some overhead, and other factors in limiting it. > > Increasing TCP buffers, and disabling delayed acks might help. Nagle might > also have to be disabled too. (delayed acks and nagle in combination can > interact in odd ways) > > >> >> --Artem >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
