From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 20 08:14:30 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 847B5106566B; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:14:30 +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 DE5318FC1C; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:14:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so5797636fxm.43 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:14:29 -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=hmPmg+d9b+8WL73aRWGacTCZb4Ae69K3T1tsqRCUe/8=; b=DUdIYEdUKmgKKtLmlB73860VtAdRUyxE1z0VwEl/xu000H1IkgoB4WWRjdt+Io76WW 5nP5qgDaa9CbW8LEXDYMQv8rN7VOb1Hh8LvGTRLJ1pm6Wr5hEwJc6ljWHSXzIRPrf7wV gUsk5Ck1tGRDW+6O0uuIHW9nL7XyX6Nt58RgU= 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=OA75P5SqlJ7h/Mqp9aJQLAXXrT/RokEuNOjf38dwAhSat+F/Mu4VUcDifdfS2T20AC J3DAfu7jJBmsA9NQ7v2Np0JAZ8asX3/mwr79a6HLUqsl1fr8n7O0ObKdoKAWjBoigMZU eMk6V9HLi7xVnvuqB4SkHR+L0v9uTlxhHC0QU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.33.194 with SMTP id i2mr5960630bkd.146.1256026467968; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:14:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:27 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Istv=C3=A1n?= To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 08:14:30 -0000 i mean doubt, shouldn't do mailing before the first coffee :))) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Istv=C3=A1n wrote: > i see > but there was no debt that it is possible. at least from my side :_) > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> 2009/10/20 Istv=C3=A1n : >> >> >> > 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 sen= se >> > then just 1 number >> >> My point was to demonstrate that saturating gigabit ethernet is very >> doable with FreeBSD, and his limitation is more likely somewhere other >> than "TCP". >> >> I've told him privately to check CPU utilisation. I'll do the same on >> my boxes when I get some time; I'd like to know why I'm only seeing ~ >> 800mbit with large buffers. >> > > > > -- > the sun shines for all > > http://l1xl1x.blogspot.com > --=20 the sun shines for all http://l1xl1x.blogspot.com