--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help
> from
> > Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce
> the
> > problem and to provide useful settings that
> made
> > sense to
--- "Vladimir B. Savkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:08:43PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > If your test is still set up, try compiling
> > something large while doing the test. The
> drops
> > go through the roof in my
--- Vladimir B. Savkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:08:43PM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
If your test is still set up, try compiling
something large while doing the test. The
drops
go through the roof in my tests.
Couldn't this happen because ksoftirqd
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help
from
Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce
the
problem and to provide useful settings that
made
sense to me. There's nothing wrong with my
machine.
Well, I didn't see
--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> > I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
> > single person who pipes into a thread. People
> who
> > say "show me your config a
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:34:14AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not always true.
> > >
> > > Imagine a slo
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:41:11AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> >
> > The issue I have with that logic is that you
> seem
> > to use "kernel" in a general sense without
> rega
--- Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:41:11AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
...
The issue I have with that logic is that you
seem
to use kernel in a general sense without
regard
to what its doing. Dropping packets is always
detrimental to the user
--- Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:34:14AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not always true.
Imagine a slow computer with a GBit
ethernet
connection, where the user
is downloading files from
--- Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
...
I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
single person who pipes into a thread. People
who
say show me your config and dmesg are not
useful. Linux has long had
--- Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6
--- Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:44 -0400, Lee Revell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:20 -0400, Michael
> Krufky wrote:
> > > Todd Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm all for this but I think there is
> little uncle George can do.
> > >
> > > Was it
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > The tests I reported where on UP systems.
> Perhaps
> > the default settings are better for this in
> 2.4,
> > since that is what I used, and you used your
> > hacks for both.
>
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> trade
> > offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
> a
> > networking device needs. So as a router or
> > network appliance, 2.6 seem
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
a
networking device needs. So as a router or
network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A
raw
bridging test on a 2.0Ghz
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is
what
a
networking device needs. So as a router
--- Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:44 -0400, Lee Revell
wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:20 -0400, Michael
Krufky wrote:
Todd Bailey wrote:
I'm all for this but I think there is
little uncle George can do.
Was it necessary to cc this to
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
The tests I reported where on UP systems.
Perhaps
the default settings are better for this in
2.4,
since that is what I used, and you used your
hacks for both.
My modifications to the kernel are unlikely to
speed
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is
what
a
networking device needs. So as a router
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/24/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > --- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Danial Thom wrote:
> > > > I think part of the problem is the
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>If you have preemtion enabled you could
> > > disable
> > > >>it. Low latency comes
> > > >>at the cost of decreased throughput -
> can't
> > > >>have both. Also try using
> > > >>a HZ of 100 if you are currently using
> 1000,
> > > >>that
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> > assume it can't be done.
>
&
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I think part of the problem is the continued
> > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > language terms, means "unexplained delay".
> Its
> > wrong here bec
--- Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think part of the problem is the continued
misuse of the word latency. Latency, in
language terms, means unexplained delay.
Its
wrong here because for one, its explainable.
But
it also depends on your perspective
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:10 -0700, Danial Thom
wrote:
None of this is helpful, but since no one has
been able to tell me how to tune it to
provide
absolute priority to the network stack I'll
assume it can't be done.
History
--- Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
None of this is helpful, but since no one has
been able to tell me how to tune it to
provide
absolute priority to the network stack I'll
assume it can't be done.
The network stack already has priority over
user
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have preemtion enabled you could
disable
it. Low latency comes
at the cost of decreased throughput -
can't
have both. Also try using
a HZ of 100 if you are currently using
1000,
that should also improve
throughput a
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/05, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think part of the problem is the
continued
misuse of the word latency. Latency, in
language terms, means unexplained
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
>
> > > >Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > > >
> > > >"Low latency comes
--- Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--- Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom
wrote:
Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
Low latency comes at the cost of
decreased
throughput - can't have both
Configuring preempt gives lower latency
here the lost
> is connected to the number to interrupts you
> have to manage.
>
> The point is that a desktop where the users
> simple need a smooth sysstem
> to be userd interactivelly, but not real CPU
> power, and a server where you
> need hourse power are different topics
the users
simple need a smooth sysstem
to be userd interactivelly, but not real CPU
power, and a server where you
need hourse power are different topics and need
different kernel
behaviour.
On Sun, August 21, 2005 19:07, Danial Thom
wrote:
Ok, well you'll have to explain this one
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> uniprocessor
> > system. Just bridgi
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> u
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> u
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> > &
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
~100Kpps, whereas 2.4.x doesn't start dropping
until over 350Kpps on the
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
~100Kpps, whereas 2.4.x doesn't start dropping
until over 350Kpps on the
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
Low latency comes at the cost of decreased
throughput - can't have both
Seems
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance
from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a
uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine
--- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance
from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a
uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine
--- Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance
from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a
uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping
48 matches
Mail list logo
