Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:14:31 +0100 From: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu> To: <pyunyh@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problem with Marwell gigabit performance Message-ID: <000601c648c9$459ef6f0$0201a8c0@oxy> References: <000a01c64848$41d6f710$0201a8c0@oxy> <000401c64873$0f4273d0$0201a8c0@oxy> <20060316003924.GB56829@cdnetworks.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
iperf is an authentic benchmark, it says 6945/163914 (4.2%) packet loss, when transfering 200MB data, the system is 80% idle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pyun YongHyeon" <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu> Cc: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:39 AM Subject: Re: problem with Marwell gigabit performance > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:57:23PM +0100, OxY wrote: > > after further testing and transferred for a couple hours i realized that > > the performance is ok, not changed dramatically > > (the server was slow when i measured 9mb/s..) > > but the load! > > when i used ftp before the load increased to ~2.0, but > > now it's 4.5! changed back to the original driver and got 2.0 again.. > > would you guys give me an advice what to buy? 3com or intel? > > (i heard em(4) driver is not too good..) > > thx! > > > > I think you may not get correct test result when other system activity > such as disk I/Os is in progress. Just stick to check pure network > performance. For ftp, you can request "/dev/zero" from ftp server > and save it as "/dev/null" on client in order to avoid disk I/Os. > Also check the following URL. > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/developers-handbook/testing.html > > -- > Regards, > Pyun YongHyeon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000601c648c9$459ef6f0$0201a8c0>