Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:44:53 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= <leccine@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Hongtao Yin <htyin@huawei.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance Message-ID: <b8592ed80910170344oe46c8ew9ea9110858643ca7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <d763ac660910170315l2b46c823l2ce4e5cc1edd959d@mail.gmail.com> References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> <b8592ed80910150512k6d334f89s3fa308a85e19da9e@mail.gmail.com> <4831593800614E6796A45F20BA4B818E@china.huawei.com> <b8592ed80910160528h604efc27w87c11a0593ce9fe8@mail.gmail.com> <d763ac660910170315l2b46c823l2ce4e5cc1edd959d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job changin= g the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overview about the size, lag, bw I like! :) On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > 2009/10/16 Istv=E1n <leccine@gmail.com>: > > I see. > > It shows that linux default setup is better. > > .. being completely correct, it shows the linux default setup _for > netpipe_ is better on that particular hardware. > > That identifies a few other variables which may need addressing. :) > > > Adrian > --=20 the sun shines for all
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b8592ed80910170344oe46c8ew9ea9110858643ca7>