Hi Andrew
So you can get to line rate on those machines? Thanks for
letting me know, so far I've been unable but I've also spent
more time on x86 as well. I can now justify spending more
time on it.
thanks
Frank
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Francesco DiMambro wrote:
>
>> Would you be prepared to share the options you used to get the
>> result, and the version of netperf? It's good to know there's more
>
> Just the same as you. netperf -H ... -- -s 1M -S 1M
> to a linux receiver (dual dual core woodcrest, barely even
> noticed a 2.2Gb/s load), 1500B MTU.
>
> The linux host was running netperf 2.4.3 (kernel 2.6.22),
> and the sparc was running netperf 2.4.2 (solaris S10U4):
>
> % netperf242 -H10.0.130.183 -C -c -l60 -- -s1M -S1M
> TCP STREAM TEST from ::ffff:0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> ::ffff:10.0.130.183 (10.0.130.183) port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service
> Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send
> Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local
> remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % M % S us/KB
> us/KB
>
> 2097152 1048576 1048576 60.00 2239.60 4.31 4.56
> 5.049 0.667
>
>
> Sendfile helps a little:
>
> % netperf242 -H10.0.130.183 -C -c -l60 -tTCP_SENDFILE -F /var/tmp/zot
> -P 0 -- -s1M -S1M
> 2097152 1048576 1048576 60.00 2705.02 6.45 6.03
> 6.252 0.730
>
>
> (it takes a few streams to get up to line rate on a cool threads
> machine :)
>
> Anyway, if you've got an LSO implementation, I'd really like to see
> LSO results compared to MDT results on the same hardware.
>
> Drew
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
