From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Oct  5 22:21:06 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A421065687;
	Sun,  5 Oct 2008 22:21:06 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40688FC18;
	Sun,  5 Oct 2008 22:21:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E03546B09;
	Sun,  5 Oct 2008 18:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:21:05 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
In-Reply-To: <E1Km0oo-00085m-D7@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0810052319090.42465@fledge.watson.org>
References: <E1Kj7NA-000FXz-3F@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<20080926081806.GA19055@icarus.home.lan>
	<E1Kj9bR-000H7t-0g@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<20080926095230.GA20789@icarus.home.lan>
	<E1KjEZw-000KkH-GP@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0809271114450.20117@fledge.watson.org>
	<E1KjY2h-0008GC-PP@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<b41c75520809290140i435a5f6dge5219cd03cad55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1Klfac-000DzZ-Ie@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0810030910351.41647@fledge.watson.org>
	<E1KlgYe-000Es2-8u@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0810031003440.41647@fledge.watson.org>
	<E1KlgnA-000F6w-NT@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0810031022140.41647@fledge.watson.org>
	<E1KlkgH-000Iv9-2A@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0810031947400.63548@fledge.watson.org>
	<E1Km0oo-00085m-D7@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
	Robert Watson <watson@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: bad NFS/UDP performance 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:21:06 -0000


On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:

> at the moment, the best I can do is run it on a different hardware that has 
> if_em, the results are in
> 	ftp://ftp.cs.huji.ac.il/users/danny/lock.prof/7.1-1000.em the 
> benchmark ran better with the Intel NIC, averaged UDP 54MB/s, TCP 53MB/s (I 
> get the same numbers with an older kernel).

Dear Danny:

Unfortunately, I was left slightly unclear on the comparison you are making 
above.  Could you confirm whether or not, with if_em, you see a performance 
regression using UDP NFS between 7.0-RELEASE and the most recent 7.1-STABLE, 
and if you do, whether or not the RLOCK->WLOCK change has any effect on 
performance?  It would be nice to know on the same hardware but at least with 
different hardware we get a sense of whether or not this might affect other 
systems or whether it's limited to a narrower set of configurations.

Thanks,

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge