From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 31 08:05:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070AB16A43C for ; Wed, 31 May 2006 08:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB8E43D55 for ; Wed, 31 May 2006 08:05:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E1246D2B; Wed, 31 May 2006 04:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:05:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Peter Jeremy In-Reply-To: <20060531072303.GB720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20060531090435.A79162@fledge.watson.org> References: <447AB34C.4030509@sippysoft.com> <11410450515.20060529225555@lacave.net> <447B77AF.9060309@samsco.org> <447B7A55.7040704@FreeBSD.org> <447B7CB7.5000000@FreeBSD.org> <447B8900.4050603@samsco.org> <20060530004328.GF28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20060530015234.GB26022@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060530094413.W79162@fledge.watson.org> <20060531072303.GB720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Importing iSCSI target from NetBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:05:17 -0000 On Wed, 31 May 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Tue, 2006-May-30 09:46:39 +0100, Robert Watson wrote: >> network bandwidth. It seems like hardware swings back and forth quite a >> bit -- for a few years gigabit was way-the-heck-faster-than-CPU, now it's >> the other way around again. The best stack optimization work happens when >> you have to figure out how to get the network stack to perform well in >> near-infinite bandwidth scenarios with a CPU-bound stack, > > Can't you get this by using a gigabit interface and throttling the CPU via > ACPI or cpufreq? I suspect there's also a motivation element to the yet bigger, yet newer performance numbers, which simply wouldn't be replicated by successfully transfering 100mbps using a quad opteron :-). Robert N M Watson