Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:30:11 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE Cc: hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet Message-ID: <199705162130.RAA00859@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <199705161601.SAA01821@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Christoph Kukulies on Fri, 16 May 1997 18:01:41 %2B0200 (MEST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:01:41 +0200 (MEST)
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.
It's just not something you do in a time critical path.
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.
Check out lat_tcp.c from lmbench for one perspective on how this can
be defined.
---------------------------------------------////
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 /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705162130.RAA00859>