From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 17 14:17:04 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E1E106568D for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:17:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FCD8FC19 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:17:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1MzA5f-000469-4K>; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:17:03 +0200 Received: from e178046235.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.46.235] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1MzA5f-00083l-1n>; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:17:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4AD9D1DE.9050504@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:17:02 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Istv=E1n?= References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> <4831593800614E6796A45F20BA4B818E@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: 85.178.46.235 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:05:44 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , Hongtao Yin Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:17:04 -0000 Istv=E1n wrote: > I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job cha= nging > the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overvie= w > about the size, lag, bw >=20 > I like! :) >=20 > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wro= te: >=20 >> 2009/10/16 Istv=E1n : >>> 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 >=20 >=20 And maybe the wise can send out word of doing well on FreeBSD, so we can choose a better setup with looking forward repeating the test under 'tuned' conditions? I'm willing to perform some tests within the next 4 weeks when our server hardware (Dell PowerEdge 1950-III with two if_bge() NICs and 16GB RAM) changes OS from FreeBSD 8.0 to RedHat Linux. In a time-window of about a week I might be capable of testing FreeBSD 8.0 as it would be that time by the mid of November with a setup of Linux (distro doesn't matter as I can choose). I need to know WHAT, WHERE and HOW. Thanks. oh