Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 22:04:02 +0300 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r240742 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <52437C79-E04A-4C93-9E83-EF07D17D34F2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121005175024.GV34622@glebius.int.ru> References: <201209201005.q8KA5BqZ094414@svn.freebsd.org> <2966A49C-DE3F-4559-A799-D1E9C0A74A9C@gmail.com> <20121005070914.GI34622@glebius.int.ru> <F01FAEFE-8148-412D-9772-A48A1ADA64A7@gmail.com> <20121005080453.GL34622@glebius.int.ru> <2109548116005159772@unknownmsgid> <E932BC95-8286-495D-9709-3F74379CB90B@gmail.com> <20121005151139.GS34622@glebius.int.ru> <67EC4A5E-752C-4476-9C95-8BAA3A8F49BC@gmail.com> <20121005175024.GV34622@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 5, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:46:46PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote: > N> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:11:12PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote: > N> > N> With both modules I was able to saturate the four GigE = interfaces, and got=20 > N> > N> about ~3.72 Gbits/sec total according to iperf, systat -ifstat = showed > N> > N> about 116MB/s per each interface. > N> > N>=20 > N> > N> However I'm seeing slightly different CPU stat graphs [1], the = difference is not big, > N> > N> but with the new if_lagg(4) driver, when the machine is acting = as client I'm > N> > N> seeing slightly higher system CPU time, and about the same = interrupt, while > N> > N> when acting as server both system and interrupt are slightly = lower. > N> > N> But please note that these tests were not very scientifically = correct. > N> > N> When the server is available again I might be able to perform = several runs and > N> > N> do a proper comparison. > N> >=20 > N> > Do I understand correct, that in the above testing "server" means = transmitting > N> > traffic and "client" is receiving traffic? > N> >=20 > N> > --=20 > N> > Totus tuus, Glebius. > N>=20 > N> Actually with iperf the server is more like a sink, and the client = sends data to the server. > N> Here's what's in the man page : > N>=20 > N> To perform an iperf test the user > N> must establish both a server (to discard traffic) and a = client (to gen- > N> erate traffic). >=20 > Hmm, in this case I'm really puzzled with results. I expected that = receiving > side won't be affected and transmitting optimized. >=20 > --=20 > Totus tuus, Glebius. I have no explanation too, but I suppose my tests were flawed, as the = machine was not 100% idle at the moment of the test. I think I will have to retest with more runs, and probably use smaller = packets to stress the code more, as now iperf easily saturates the links and there is no visible speed = difference.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52437C79-E04A-4C93-9E83-EF07D17D34F2>