Correction: msecs. - not secs.
2014-07-17 11:00 GMT+02:00 Stephan stephan...@googlemail.com:
I have 2 boxes here at hand with wm interfaces and they reply in
between 0,5 and 0,8 secs. Likewise, when I ping another host (Solaris)
from these boxes it gives me a response time of 0,5 - 0,8 secs.
Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
I experiment 10 GE link with ixb(4), but the result is really weak: The
two machines have a direct link through a SFTP+ câble, and copying a file
over NFS I get a throughput of 1.8 Mb/s, which is less than 2% of the
link capacity. Any idea of where to
I saw these ping latencys of 0,5 seconds on very different NetBSD
Servers with completely different hardware. There might be a
regression somewhere. I don´t know, if so, wheather it is specific to
ICMP or networking in general.
2014-07-17 6:19 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org:
Emmanuel
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:36:59AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
ifconfig does not want tcp4csum-rx and udp4csum-rx despite advertising
them as available.
In the hardware, you cannot independently enable layer-4 Rx checksums
for TCP or UDP, IPv4 or IPv6. It's all or nothing. So that you
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 11:44:58PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
As a first step, ensure your socket buffer sizes are adequate. The default,
and default maximum, socket buffer sizes in NetBSD are inappropriate for
10Gb unless you are using hundreds of TCP conections at once.
What is an
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 08:19:57AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 11:44:58PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
As a first step, ensure your socket buffer sizes are adequate. The default,
and default maximum, socket buffer sizes in NetBSD are inappropriate for
10Gb
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 02:43:19PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
I quote myself here:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:05:53PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 114938 KByte/s Tx, 114816 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 114924 KByte/s Tx,
On Jul 6, 2014, at 17:39 , Matthias Scheler t...@zhadum.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 02:43:19PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
I quote myself here:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:05:53PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 114938 KByte/s
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:50:42PM -0700, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
That's what I should've said if I wanted to be helpful. On Linux I
suggest iperf (multiple threads) or multiple concurrent copies of
netperf. It takes more than one thread to saturate the link. Then after
you made sure that
I quote myself here:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:05:53PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 114938 KByte/s Tx, 114816 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 114924 KByte/s Tx, 114868 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 4k bytes: 114871 KByte/s Tx, 114901
Sorry, I meant netio, not netperf - my bad. It should give you
something like this:
# netio -t 127.0.0.1
NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel
TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 297270 KByte/s Tx, 276700 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:34:07AM +0200, Stephan wrote:
Sorry, I meant netio
NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel
TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 114938 KByte/s Tx, 114816 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 114924 KByte/s Tx,
Hello
I experiment 10 GE link with ixb(4), but the result is really weak: The
two machines have a direct link through a SFTP+ câble, and copying a file
over NFS I get a throughput of 1.8 Mb/s, which is less than 2% of the
link capacity. Any idea of where to look for imrovement?
Here is dmesg
Hi,
did you measure raw TCP and UDP throughput using iperf or netperf?
Regards,
Stephan
2014-07-01 8:56 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org:
Hello
I experiment 10 GE link with ixb(4), but the result is really weak: The
two machines have a direct link through a SFTP+ câble, and
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:15:45AM +0200, Stephan wrote:
did you measure raw TCP and UDP throughput using iperf or netperf?
No, this was a file copy over NFS.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:15:45AM +0200, Stephan wrote:
did you measure raw TCP and UDP throughput using iperf or netperf?
No, this was a file copy over NFS.
Step one, don't use NFS.
--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com
BSEE(6/86) +
Hisashi T Fujinaka ht...@twofifty.com wrote:
No, this was a file copy over NFS.
Step one, don't use NFS.
What should I use instead?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
In Message 1lo4dze.1ihmarucmavkvm%m...@netbsd.org,
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus)wrote:
=Hisashi T Fujinaka ht...@twofifty.com wrote:
=
= No, this was a file copy over NFS.
= Step one, don't use NFS.
=
=What should I use instead?
Regardless of alternatives to NFS, it seems to me that
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Gary Duzan wrote:
In Message 1lo4dze.1ihmarucmavkvm%m...@netbsd.org,
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus)wrote:
=Hisashi T Fujinaka ht...@twofifty.com wrote:
=
= No, this was a file copy over NFS.
= Step one, don't use NFS.
=
=What should I use instead?
Regardless of
I would recommend using netperf for measuring TCP and UDP performance.
Besides that, it measures different block/segment sizes.
2014-07-02 5:26 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org:
Stephan stephan...@googlemail.com wrote:
did you measure raw TCP and UDP throughput using iperf or
20 matches
Mail list logo
