From owner-freebsd-current Thu Dec 13 11:13:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DD237B416 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from bmah.dyndns.org ([12.233.149.189]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011213191309.MZDY5010.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@bmah.dyndns.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:13:09 +0000 Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBDJD8d38312; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:13:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200112131913.fBDJD8d38312@bmah.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Luigi Rizzo , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current vs. -stable network performance In-Reply-To: <200112131839.fBDId7v70103@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20011212224206.D35108@iguana.aciri.org> <200112131839.fBDId7v70103@apollo.backplane.com> Comments: In-reply-to Matthew Dillon message dated "Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:39:07 -0800." From: "Bruce A. Mah" Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1567691784P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:13:08 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --==_Exmh_-1567691784P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I've noticed that -current has much lower TCP performance. I haven't > had time to investigate it but I presume there is some overhead > somewhere that is killing it. Here's a data point but I'm not sure how useful it is. At the start of December I was using tcpreplay to spew packets from a stored trace into a testbed network as fast as the CPU could go, and I saw: 5-CURRENT (11/19): 9244 pps, 35.6 Mbps 4-STABLE (late November): 21827 pps, 84 Mbps These measurements were on the same machine, which is a 1.7 GHz P4, 512MB RAM, ATA disk. Network interface was a four-port dc-type card. GENERIC kernels. These are "typical" numbers, but fairly repeatable over various trace files I was using. At the time I was more interested in being able to get packets on the network quickly than in why there was a performance difference, so I just plopped 4-STABLE on the machine without doing any other investigation. Bruce. --==_Exmh_-1567691784P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.3.1+ 05/14/2001 iD8DBQE8GP3E2MoxcVugUsMRAu88AJ9Rg+aRhCHEffS7jjHuJhdK4Pa82QCg6X9m fESGtg1i5rSEDCyj5R5HJsA= =AoN6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1567691784P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message