Do you see a difference in the system load too, say a few lines of 'vmstat 1'
?
This is running on a dual core machine which explains the 50/50
sys/idle in vmstat.
with 8168 hack (patch #0002):
writes:
isis tmp # dd if=/dev/zero of=test.fil bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records
I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivalent in
both cases as should be the case. Read perfomance for me maxed out
Do you have some (gross) figure for the write performance ?
Write performance was
Does acceptable mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivalent in
both cases as should be the case. Read
David Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
Does acceptable mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivalent in
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
I have had abysmal performance trying to remotely run X apps via ssh on a
computer with a RTL8111 NIC. Saw this message and decided to give this
patch a try --- success! Much, much better.
Can you give
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
20070903-2.6.23-rc5-r8169-test.patch applied against 2.6.23-rc5 works fine.
Performance is acceptable.
Does acceptable mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
Would you like me to *just*
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
20070903-2.6.23-rc5-r8169-test.patch applied against 2.6.23-rc5 works fine.
Performance is acceptable.
Does acceptable mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a
Francois Romieu wrote:
Does acceptable mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
Would you like me to *just* try patches 1 2, to help narrow down anything?
I expect patch #2 alone to be enough to enhance the performance. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
I have had abysmal performance trying to remotely run X apps via ssh on a
computer with a RTL8111 NIC. Saw this message and decided to give this
patch a try --- success! Much, much better.
Can you give a try to:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Bruce Cole wrote:
Shane wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:39:47AM -0700, Bruce Cole wrote:
Shane, join the crowd :) Try the fix I just re-posted over here:
Bruce, gigabit speeds thanks for the pointer. This fix
works well for me though I just added the three or so
Just upgraded a motherboard and it came with an onboard
Realtek card which appears to use the r8169 driver. The
machine is a samba server and when serving files to a local
Linux or Windows client, I only get approx 40-60 kbps.
Write performance is fine though, in the tens of mbps and
scp, nfs,
11 matches
Mail list logo
