Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:39:53 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= <leccine@gmail.com> Cc: Hongtao Yin <htyin@huawei.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Brent Jones <brent@servuhome.net> Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance Message-ID: <d763ac660910191939y2416535ck6e2c351a3f329677@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b8592ed80910191716v11b978c1i8bf82170e4ed6a37@mail.gmail.com> References: <78DB4AE8EF5F4A1EBD3992D7404B2725@china.huawei.com> <d763ac660910180755i7f6fd3c7q8578bfed11978b9d@mail.gmail.com> <ee9f3b480910181305x5c8661a7mb7bfdd2ddd0a267d@mail.gmail.com> <d763ac660910181836p45aedc37v1c77f5e96b6df13b@mail.gmail.com> <b8592ed80910191716v11b978c1i8bf82170e4ed6a37@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/10/20 Istv=E1n <leccine@gmail.com>: > 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 sense > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660910191939y2416535ck6e2c351a3f329677>