From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 20 00:17:00 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 E23CC1065676; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:17:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f210.google.com (mail-fx0-f210.google.com [209.85.220.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493D78FC19; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so5492409fxm.43 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D2Db1XjVmYiV4RNznZKdT0OuHpQ6RD60460J+icjiTU=; b=YHvMU/c49LpPGrDZfRD7N5uEmxy7806YKhOK+sIGlcxTgpbqJUzclfestRyFuT7Rv8 AkwMz10KtEa24kIYAyCHjP5oYTTRp527OTIlbz/k2qHGEuuUbF3IHLWdJuEspNcgEKCF /lVKw9PM++rVmu7NFVOcTRrKs9h29ZEW62HmA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=KqiQfckK4ap9uCN2FZL6G3fDaifPb/WnHaxvtSZnEhy8zKgK8JS2Y9vNdDukc+8ZO7 VxLncOT7t3SVrmqQuuM3pwjy4OOO1rv6Ls/rbJFQrkUNIB/XsjolyK2rrOwuWoITdqod kH9Nn9DbYgTtRC/dli9jQZsuGkN35mFZLgptU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.34.203 with SMTP id m11mr5600848bkd.79.1255997817892; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:16:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Istv=C3=A1n?= To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Hongtao Yin , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Brent Jones 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: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:17:01 -0000 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > uhm: > > kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10 > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2 > (192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 8192 65536 65536 10.00 862.48 > > 1 megabyte socket buffers threw an error. I'll see why later. > > Now, as for why 64k socket buffers gave a slower result than 8k socket > buffers... ah. If I change the sending end to use 64k socket buffers: > > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2 > (192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 65536 65536 65536 10.00 916.23 > > > > Adrian > > therefore i like netpipe runs you can see the performance and the latency as well using the packet size as your "x" axis, i think it makes more sense then just 1 number -- the sun shines for all http://l1xl1x.blogspot.com