From owner-freebsd-net Thu Feb 1 17:15:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from measurement-factory.com (unknown [206.168.0.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD6537B4EC for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:15:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA68480; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:14:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:14:33 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Yu-Shun Wang Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPComp question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote: > Another (sort of) related question: I've got the bandwidth > measurements for different algorthms using netperf. I was > really surprised that IPComp did so bad. Any ideas? AFAIK, netperf TCP_STREAM test (and may be others) is extremely susceptible to network delays. For example, for a fast Ethernet connection with, say, 30msec packet delay, netperf may show less than 10Mbits/sec bandwidth instead of the usual 90+Mbits/sec. Clearly, bandwidth and response times are orthogonal measurements, but netperf design ties them together. Depending on your test environment and purposes, netperf throughput results may be very misleading. $0.02, Alex. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message