Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:45:12 -0500 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: mark@quickweb.com Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, dyson@freebsd.org, dennis@etinc.com, kpneal@pobox.com, hackers@freebsd.org, torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi, lm@engr.sgi.com, iain@sbs.de, sparclinux@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: TCP/IP bandwidth bragging Message-ID: <199612030545.AAA18646@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.94.961203001921.29153A-100000@vinyl.quickweb.com> (message from Mark Mayo on Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:28:17 -0500 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:28:17 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Mayo <mark@quickweb.com> Just curious, what was the benchmark you ran? I can't remember it being referenced in the thread.. I'd like to run it on a few machines (ranging from DEC Unix, to Ultrix..) and see how my machines are performing. lmbench seems to be the implied benchmark, but I'd like to know for sure =) Yes, it is lmbench that I have been running most of the time. I use "ttcp" once in a while as well, that can be obtained from: ftp.sgi.com:/sgi/src/ttcp (I think thats it, you'll have to rummage around) I'll give it a run on the 100MB/s net here, and the FDDI. Of course, the PC's won't have the bus bandwidth to sustain transfer across the ATM switch - but I'd like to make my own comparisons, whether the benchmark represents the _real world_ of not is of no concern to me really. I know how the machines perform during normal operation, I'm just curious about how the benchmark will vary form OS to OS and from hardware to hardware! Note that with PCI bus theoretically it can be made to keep with an ATM interface with lots of operating system tricks such as page flipping. For FDDI, the latency numbers might not be so hot, depending upon how low you have the "Token Hold Time" configured on all the cards on your ring. And not that although a low token hold-time improves latencies (many small quick transfers) it will hurt bandwidth and thus a high token hold-time is recommended for high bandwidth usage. ---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612030545.AAA18646>