Not today, but I will give it a shot next time I get a free machine. I have tested between Rhat4u4 MLX4 and Rhat4u4 mthca and seen the same trend though.
Thanks, JIm Jim Mott Mellanox Technologies Ltd. mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 512-294-5481 -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:03 PM To: Jim Mott; Weikuan Yu Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] Not seeing any SDP performance changes inOFED 1.3 beta, and I get Oops when enabling sdp_zcopy_thresh Is there any way you can make sender and receiver the same RHEL kernel? > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Mott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:58 PM > To: Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen); Weikuan Yu > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] Not seeing any SDP > performance changes inOFED 1.3 beta, and I get Oops when > enabling sdp_zcopy_thresh > > Receive side: > - 2.6.23.8 kernel.org kernel on Rhat5 distro > - HCA is MLX4 with 2.3.914 > I get the same number on released 2.3 firmware > > Send side: > - 2.6.9-42.ELsmp x86_64 (Rhat4u4) > - HCA is MLX4 with 2.3.914 > > I get the same trends (SDP < BZCOPY if message_size > 64K) on > unmodifed > Rhat5, Rhat4u4, and SLES10-SP1-RT distros. I also see it on > kernel.org > kernels 2.6.23.12, 2.6.24-rc2, 2.6.23, and 2.6.22.9. I am in > the midst > of testing some things, so I do not have all the machines available > right now to repeat most of the tests though. > > > Thanks, > JIm > > Jim Mott > Mellanox Technologies Ltd. > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 512-294-5481 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:39 PM > To: Jim Mott; Weikuan Yu > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] Not seeing any SDP performance > changes inOFED 1.3 beta, and I get Oops when enabling sdp_zcopy_thresh > > Jim, what kernel and HCA are these numbers for? > > Scott > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Mott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:09 AM > > To: Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen); Weikuan Yu > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] Not seeing any SDP > > performance changes inOFED 1.3 beta, and I get Oops when > > enabling sdp_zcopy_thresh > > > > Right you are (as usual). > > > > Hunting around these systems shows that I have been using > > netperf-2.4.3 > > for testing. No configuration options; just ./configure; make; make > > install. > > > > To try and understand version differences, I installed 2.4.1 (your > > version?), 2.4.3, and 2.4.4. Built them with default > options and ran > > the tests using each. > > > > Using netperf-2.4.1 and reran "netperf -v2 -4 -H > > 193.168.10.143 -l 30 -t > > TCP_STREAM -c -C -- -m size" with target AMD and driver as > > 8-processor > > Intel: > > > > 64K 128K 1M > > SDP 7749.66 6925.68 6281.17 > > BZCOPY 8492.85 9867.06 11105.50 > > > > I tried running these tests a few times and saw a lot of > > variance in the > > reported results. Reloading 2.4.3 and running the same tests: > > > > 64K 128K 1M > > SDP 7553.77 6747.58 5986.42 > > BZCOPY 8839.46 9572.49 10654.52 > > > > and finally, I tried 2.4.4 and running the same tests: > > > > 64K 128K 1M > > SDP 7935.97 6325.69 7682.65 > > BZCOPY 8905.94 9935.45 10615.03 > > > > At this point, I am confused. The difference between SDP with and > > without Bzcopy is obvious in all three sets of numbers. I can not > > explain why you see something different. > > > > If you could try a vanilla netperf build, it would be > > interesting to see > > if you get any different results. > > > > Thanks, > > JIm > > > > Jim Mott > > Mellanox Technologies Ltd. > > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: 512-294-5481 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 10:36 AM > > To: Jim Mott; Jim Mott; Weikuan Yu > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] Not seeing any SDP performance > > changes inOFED 1.3 beta, and I get Oops when enabling > sdp_zcopy_thresh > > > > > So I see your results (sort of). I have been using the > > > netperf that ships with the OS (Rhat4u4 and Rhat5 mostly) or > > > is built with > > > default options. Maybe that is the difference. > > > > Jim, AFAIK Red Hat does not ship netperf with RHEL. > > > > Scott > > > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
