Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:04:00 +0800 From: "Jian Qiu" <swordqiu@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's the status of parallel netisr? Message-ID: <e8520310809200904h4def7c60ifd49f4176c2e440d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <48D2ABA2.8010703@FreeBSD.org> References: <e8520310809151020j29b8870v3167cb2879e8543d@mail.gmail.com> <48CF6450.6020909@FreeBSD.org> <e8520310809160743v46b5cf18jd78f6043eaeccaa3@mail.gmail.com> <48D00899.4070908@FreeBSD.org> <e8520310809180750h41ddd3e9tb83f20953f1c8095@mail.gmail.com> <48D2ABA2.8010703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Kris, > In our application-level tests FreeBSD significantly out-performs Linux, so > either you have found a different workload, or something is not configured > equally. One important thing I can think of off the top of my head is that > Linux has a larger socket buffer size by default, so try tuning that on > FreeBSD or confirm they are equal. > > If that still fails, can you provide test code? > > Kris > I tried but larger socket buffer seem not helpful. I also tried netperf and iperf. Both applications achieve better throughput on Linux. So I feel the result is not specific to my test code. My code is very simple. Basically, a client process called sendto in a loop while a server called recvfrom in a loop. Besides these, some additional lines get the throughput statistics. If necessary, I will post the code here. BTW, I did the tests on Linux 2.26.5. Which linux kernel did you use? Could you please provide some more information on your test. Many thanks. Jian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e8520310809200904h4def7c60ifd49f4176c2e440d>