Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:01:41 +0200 (MEST) From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> To: davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu (David S. Miller) Cc: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE, hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet Message-ID: <199705161601.SAA01821@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <199705160732.DAA00547@jenolan.caipgeneral> from "David S. Miller" at "May 16, 97 03:32:46 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> > Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:13 +0200 (MEST) > > Someone told me some time ago when I was seeking for similar > figures (Garret ?) that FreeBSD can saturate 10/100 Mbit with > appropriate CPU power. The only interesting question would be CPU > utilization during transfer compared to other L-word OSs. > > I'd be more interested in seeing FreeBSD get low latencies, but as > long as you guys are bzero()'ing a structure on the stack of > tcp_input() for every packet that arrives just for T/TCP's sake, it > isn't going to happen. Interesting. a) I don't know how efficient the bzero() is (inline? #idef KERNEL?) over a statementwise zeroing of a 20 byte structure and why this. b) Could you elaborate to a mundane how TCP latency is defined? I know the term 'interrupt latency' being defined as the time from the occurence of an interrupt to the first statement serving the interrupt. > > ---------------------------------------------//// > 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 /_____________/ / // /_/ >< > -- Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705161601.SAA01821>