Just to block netperf you can send it SIGSTOP :)
Clever :) One could I suppose achieve the same result by making the remote
receive socket buffer size smaller than the UDP message size and then not worry
about having to learn the netserver's PID to send it the SIGSTOP. I *think* the
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:27:55AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
Just to block netperf you can send it SIGSTOP :)
Clever :) One could I suppose achieve the same result by making the
remote receive socket buffer size smaller than the UDP message size
and then not worry about having to learn
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:27:55AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
Just to block netperf you can send it SIGSTOP :)
Clever :) One could I suppose achieve the same result by making the
remote receive socket buffer size smaller than the UDP message size
and then not worry
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:01:45AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:27:55AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
Just to block netperf you can send it SIGSTOP :)
Clever :) One could I suppose achieve the same result by making the
remote receive socket
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 05:38:49PM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:57:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:11:52AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59:30AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:39:02PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 05:38:49PM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:57:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:11:52AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:11:52AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59:30AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
On Tue, Jan 18,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:57:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:11:52AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59:30AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
I'd like to know whether
I have constructed a test where I run an un-paced UDP_STREAM test in
one guest and a paced omni rr test in another guest at the same time.
Hmm, what is this supposed to measure? Basically each time you run an
un-paced UDP_STREAM you get some random load on the network.
Well, if the netperf
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59:30AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
So it won't be all that
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
by it. For example, we
Simon Horman wrote:
[ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
...
I have constructed a test where I run an un-paced UDP_STREAM test in
one guest and a paced omni rr test in another guest at the same time.
Breifly I get the following results from the omni test..
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:13:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
by it. For example, we could
So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
by it. For example, we could try to measure latency at various
pps and see whether the backpressure helps. netperf has -b, -w
flags which might help these
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
by it. For example, we could try to measure latency at various
pps and see whether the backpressure
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
PS - the enhanced latency statistics from -j are only available in
the omni version of the TCP_RR test. To get that add a
--enable-omni to the ./configure - and in this case both netperf and
netserver have
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:37:30AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:54:15AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 03:35:28PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:58:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:26:25AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:07:30 am Simon Horman wrote:
[snip]
I've been away, but what concerns me is that socket buffer limits are
bypassed in various configurations, due to skb cloning. We should probably
drop such limits
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:54:15AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 03:35:28PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:58:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:41:36AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:07:30 am Simon Horman wrote:
[snip]
I've been away, but what concerns me is that socket buffer limits are
bypassed in various configurations, due to skb cloning. We should probably
drop such limits altogether, or fix them to be consistent.
Simple fix is as someone
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:23:58AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:41:36AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:58:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:41:36AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 03:35:28PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:58:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:41:36AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 AM,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:23:58AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:38:01PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
[ snip ]
I know that everyone likes a nice netperf result but I agree with
Michael that this
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:23:58AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:38:01PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
[ snip ]
I know that everyone likes a nice netperf result but I agree with
Michael that this probably isn't the right question to be asking. I
don't think that
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].
I have (finally) looked into this further and the problem appears to relate
to cloning of skbs, as Jesse Gross originally suspected.
More specifically, in
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:33 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].
I have (finally) looked into this further and the problem appears to relate
to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:33:12PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].
Apropos the UDP flow control. See this
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:27:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:33:12PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].
Apropos the
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:30:52PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:27:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:33:12PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:07:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:30:52PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:27:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:33:12PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
Hi,
Back in October
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:22:42AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:33 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].
I have (finally)
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:29:02PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:07:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:30:52PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:27:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 21:44 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
Hi Eric !
Thanks for the advice. I had thought about the socket buffer but at some
point it slipped my mind.
In any case the following patch seems to implement the change that I had in
mind. However my discussions Michael
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:22:42AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:33 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
Hi,
Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
breaks down
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:28:18PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 21:44 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
Hi Eric !
Thanks for the advice. I had thought about the socket buffer but at some
point it slipped my mind.
In any case the following patch seems to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:38:01PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
[ snip ]
I know that everyone likes a nice netperf result but I agree with
Michael that this probably isn't the right question to be asking. I
don't think that socket buffers are a real solution to the flow
control problem: they
39 matches
Mail list logo
