Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:55:06 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: Peter Lei <peterlei@cisco.com>, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some interesting plots Message-ID: <20060930085506.GA32513@cdnetworks.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <451D5801.8030504@cisco.com> References: <451D5801.8030504@cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:29:37PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote: > All: > > As you all may know I have been working on getting SCTP > into Current.. > > I have been, of late, trying to tweak things to get > the BEST performance out of the implementation... > > I have moved my testing off between two 7.0 machines.. same > code base on each updated Sep 25. > > One is a 2.8Gig Dell SC1600 Xeon.. (hyper threaded CPU). > The other is a P4D (2.8Gig .. slightly faster, true dual > processor machine). > > They are connected by two intel EM server cards like so: > > > +----+ +----+ > 1 | em1 <---------------------> em0 | 2 > | em0 <-----locallan--------> msk0| > | dc0 <-Direct Inet | > +----+ +-----+ > > > em1 has 10.1.2.12 em0 10.1.2.21 > em0 has 10.1.1.12 msk0 10.1.1.21 > [...] > One other note, I see TCP is only getting 250Meg or so on the > same test (It can run either).. now it used to get close to > the full pipe (Gigbit).. so is there some issue with the new code > that was recently submitted? > I'm not sure but it seems that you've used experimental msk(4) on CURRENT. ATM msk(4) has Rx performance issue. So if you get very poor receive performance it would be msk(4) issue. -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060930085506.GA32513>