From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May 16 09:00:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA05094
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.116.240])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05089
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de (gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.31.2]) by Campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (RBI-Z-5/8.6.12)
	with ESMTP id SAA08515; Fri, 16 May 1997 18:02:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from kuku@localhost) by gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de (8.8.5/8.6.9) id SAA01821; Fri, 16 May 1997 18:01:42 +0200 (MEST)
From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-Id: <199705161601.SAA01821@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de>
Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet
In-Reply-To: <199705160732.DAA00547@jenolan.caipgeneral> from "David S. Miller" at "May 16, 97 03:32:46 am"
To: davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu (David S. Miller)
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:01:41 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE, hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Reply-To: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>    From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
>    Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:13 +0200 (MEST)
> 
>    Someone told me some time ago when I was seeking for similar
>    figures (Garret ?) that FreeBSD can saturate 10/100 Mbit with
>    appropriate CPU power. The only interesting question would be CPU
>    utilization during transfer compared to other L-word OSs.
> 
> I'd be more interested in seeing FreeBSD get low latencies, but as
> long as you guys are bzero()'ing a structure on the stack of
> tcp_input() for every packet that arrives just for T/TCP's sake, it
> isn't going to happen.

Interesting.

a) I don't know how efficient the bzero() is (inline? #idef KERNEL?)
   over a statementwise zeroing of a 20 byte structure and why this.

b) Could you elaborate to a mundane how TCP latency is defined?
   I know the term 'interrupt latency' being defined as the time
   from the occurence of an interrupt to the first statement
   serving the interrupt.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------////
> Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & ////
> 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s   ////
> ethernet.  Beat that!                     ////
> -----------------------------------------////__________  o
> David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
> 

--
Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de