Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:27:50 +0000 From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ixl 40G bad performance? Message-ID: <0E4C2D93-FBAF-48CB-A704-499ABFC892B9@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1t9Tw0j=uwaw1GK47r5=F-zeuz2hps_Ez3Y_QC-QSAGKA@mail.gmail.com> References: <5aae0ee63c44627223d5d179f1901d00@pyret.net> <CAN6yY1t9Tw0j=uwaw1GK47r5=F-zeuz2hps_Ez3Y_QC-QSAGKA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2015-10-26, at 4:38, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Daniel Engberg < > daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> wrote: > >> One thing I've noticed that probably affects your performance benchmarks >> somewhat is that you're using iperf(2) instead of the newer iperf3 but I >> could be wrong... > > iperf3 is not a newer version of iperf. It is a total re-write and a rather > different tool. It has significant improvements in many areas and new > capabilities that might be of use. That said, there is no reason to think > that the results of tests using iperf2 are in any way inaccurate. However, > it is entirely possible to get misleading results if options not properly > selected. FWIW, I've been using netperf and tried various options. I don't think the issues is the benchmarking tool. I think the issue is TSO/LRO issues (per my earlier email.) Lars [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVi3yFtZcnpRveo1xAQgUqwP/aPyIb9JPuHy6cWX2GsysM9lBeKD+5xPW mpNNQPHGsgd6KGtj39IPDHLEkpi5sUn6yTB1PA2OqCA4vD+WzrD/Ehkzs9iucxG4 64pSAOVBzNdRx20nHXOXmzNzRGTHVfqGu9AdpGTRheRod9vCfz6x8vZystBYYvPn Zc6syfs/a9Q= =5OKz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0E4C2D93-FBAF-48CB-A704-499ABFC892B9>